Preamble

The House met at Half past

Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE KING

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. POPPLEWELL) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Addresses, as follows:

I have received your Addresses praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Israel) Order, 1950; The Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Fiji) Order, 1950; The Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony) Order, 1950; The Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (British Solomon Islands Protectorate) Order, 1950; and The Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (North Borneo) Order, 1950; he made in the form of the respective drafts laid before Parliament.

I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (COLNE VALLEY SEWERAGE BOARD) BILL

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SOUTH-WEST MIDDLESEX CREMATORIUM BOARD) BILL

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA

British Merchant Shipping

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many members of the crews of the two merchant ships which were seized by the Chinese Nationalists while running the

blockade were respectively imprisoned, killed or injured; and what steps have been taken to compensate their dependants.

The Minister of State (Mr. Younger): His Majesty's Consul at Tamsui has reported that as far as he is aware, neither the British masters, nor the officers, nor any of the members of the Chinese crews of these two merchant ships have been imprisoned, killed or injured. No question of compensation, therefore, arises.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister say what, if anything, is being done to secure the release of these men?

Mr. Younger: We are trying to get detailed information of their situation, but my hon. and learned Friend will appreciate that in the present condition of our relations out there this is not very easy.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the use in the question of the word "blockade," will the hon. Gentleman make it quite clear that His Majesty's Government do not regard these interferences with British shipping as constituting a lawful blockade under international law?

Mr. Younger: I think that I can say that, although if the hon. Gentleman wants a carefully worded legal answer he should put that question on the Order Paper.

Diplomatic Relations

Mr. Fitzroy Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the scope and purpose of the procedural and preliminary discussions now in progress between His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires in Peking and the Chinese Communist authorities; and what progress has been made with them.

Mr. Younger: On 6th January, 1950, His Majesty's Government addressed a formal Note to the Central People's Government recognising them as the de jure Government of China. In a reply dated 9th January, the Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs signified the willingness of his Government to establish diplomatic relations witch His Majesty's Government on the basis of equality, mutual benefit and mutual respect for territory and sovereignty. The Chinese Government, having subsequently expressed a desire for discussion of preliminary and procedural matters relating


to the establishment of diplomatic relations, His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires was instructed to proceed to Peking for this purpose. Thereafter, certain questions, namely, on the subject of Chinese representation in the United Nations and Chinese State property, were raised orally by the Central People's Government and an oral reply was communicated to them. The next step now rests with the Central People's Government.

Mr. Maclean: Can the Minister say why discussions should be necessary at all, let alone discussions lasting for three or four months? Surely the establishment of normal diplomatic relations is quite a simple straightforward matter, to be settled without prolonged discussions?

Mr. Younger: We had hoped that that would be the case, but it takes two to make a bargain. We are trying to establish these relations as soon as we can.

Mr. Maclean: Will the Minister give an undertaking that in the course of this bargaining no concessions will be made involving any departure from usually accepted procedure?

Mr. Younger: I do not think that any question of concessions arises in this case.

Oral Answers to Questions — RETAINED PASSPORTS (SECURITY FOR LOANS)

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the case of Miss Winifred Boulter who was banned from spending Easter in Paris because his Department would not allow her to have her passport back; whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government not to allow British subjects to use a passport and leave Great Britain because they have not paid hack all the money lent them as pocket money while they were interned in occupied territory during the war; and whether there is any limit to the period such debts can be claimed.

Mr. Younger: It is not the policy of His Majesty's Government to withhold a passport because of debts in respect of pocket money issued from public funds during the war. Miss Boulter received relief amounting to £553 in France during the war, and, notwithstanding this debt, a

passport was issued to her in 1947. In March, 1949, she was repatriated from France at public expense, and on her subsequent application for the return of her passport she was asked to repay the sum of £13 involved. She has now repaid this amount and her passport has been returned to her.

Mr. Teeling: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the anxiety which this has caused to great numbers of people at present living in France, who come over here on holidays and who have not yet been able to repay all that they owed? Can he assure the House that there will not be any effort to take their passports from them when they are returning again to France?

Mr. Younger: I understand that there was a report in the Press that a passport had been refused on account of debts of this kind, which had been incurred during the war. That was quite inaccurate, and I am glad to be able to say that it is not the practice of His Majesty's Government to withhold passports because those sums have not been repaid.

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what restrictions in the use of their passports is put on British subjects resident in France who owe money for sums advanced them by the British Government during the occupation of France, either while they were interned, or while they were cut off from their ordinary sources of financial support.

Mr. Younger: None, Sir.

Mr. Teeling: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that in all parts of the world, including France, no pressure is likely to be brought to bear in future in connection with debts now seven years old? What is the position with regard to pressure being brought to bear upon anybody? Is any pressure being brought to bear?

Mr. Younger: The most I can say is that if public money has been paid out it is reasonable that a request should be made for its repayment, unless there are circumstances of hardship. I do not think that payment has ever been pressed for where any hardship has been involved. I do not think that I could go further than that.

Mr. Teeling: Why do we not sue in the courts as quickly as possible if we are determined to get the medley, and, in that way, get the whole matter settled instead of leaving it to the Foreign Office to make up its mind?

Mr. Younger: Any question of litigation would have to depend upon the circumstances of a particular case.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPAN (BRITISH REPRESENTATIONS)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs under what circumstances His Majesty's representative in Tokyo is allowed to meet the Japanese Prime Minister, and when matters arise with the Japanese Government for which General MacArthur's headquarters state that they hold no responsibility, and that the Japanese Government can act as it pleases, with whom does His Majesty's representative communicate.

Mr. Younger: The head of the United Kingdom Liaison Mission in Japan meets Japanese, including members of the Japanese Government, informally and socially. He is not permitted to make official representations to the Japanese Prime Minister. Such representations must be made to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, and in the view of His Majesty's Government the Supreme Commander cannot, as suggested by the hon. Member, disclaim responsibility in matters affecting the rights and interests of Allied nationals in Japan. General MacArthur himself, indeed, is always willing to examine with care any views on questions of such a kind which the head of the United Kingdom Liaison Mission may put to him.

Mr. Teeling: Has the Minister's attention been called to the fact that American headquarters in Tokyo recently stated that they were not responsible for what the Japanese Government were doing in regard to the taxation of British subjects, and the Japanese Government was to deal with that matter? In that case with whom can our representative discuss this matter?

Mr. Younger: I believe that certain statements that have been published have led to some misunderstanding. The fact is that the Supreme Commander is always

prepared to take into account representations made on these matters by out Liaison Mission.

Mr. Paton: In view of the misunderstanding to which my hon. Friend has referred, will he make it quite clear that the Japanese Government cannot act as they care to do, as is suggested in this Question, and that they are still governed by the provisions of the Potsdam Conference. and will be so governed until the peace treaty is signed?

Mr. Younger: That is a very general question. The situation which has existed in Japan in the last two or three years in regard to the responsibilities of the Allied Supreme Commander and the Japanese authorities has not changed

Mr. Walter Fletcher: How does the Minister reconcile the reply he has given today with the reply which he gave to me the other day regarding taxation, in which he stated that the Finance Minister was discussing these matters with our representatives?

Mr. Younger: I have not the exact wording of that reply before me. All that I have said on this occasion is that when representations are made to the Supreme Allied Commander he takes them into account, and that that is the effective channel for making those representations.

Mr. Leslie Hale: In view of the considerable misunderstanding about these matters in Japan, and as what my hon. Friend has said appears to conflict with information given to the House a few days ago, will my hon. Friend make a formal statement showing what rights we have in Japan and calling the attention of the proper authorities, even the Supreme Commander, to the fact that Britain took some part in the war in the Pacific?

Oral Answers to Questions — PRAGUE (BRITISH INFORMATION SERVICE)

Mr. Garner-Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he proposes to take to replace those employees of the British Information Service in Prague who have recently resigned; and whether, where necessary, he will appoint British citizens to these posts.

Mr. Younger: It is not proposed to replace the two local employees who have resigned from the British Information Service in Prague.

Mr. Garner-Evans: Is the Minister aware that tens of thousands of people in Prague look upon this Information Service with great respect, and will he see to it that it is kept open?

Mr. Younger: The intention is to reorganise this work in such a way that it can continue.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Books, Importation

Mr. Leslie Hale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the powers of censorship on books, manuscripts and documents imported into Kenya possessed by the Governor of Kenya; and under what act or instrument these powers are possessed, and how far they have been recently exercised.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. James Griffiths): Under Section 53 of the Kenya Penal Code, the Governor in Council has absolute discretion to prohibit the importation of any publication where he considers it would be contrary to the public interest. So far as I am aware the most recent exercise of these powers by the Governor in Council was in February last, in the case of a book "Africa—Britain's Third Empire."

Mr. Hale: Will my right hon. Friend consider whether these arbitrary powers should continue to exist, and whether the exercise of them is designed to increase or decrease the circulation of these books in the colonies? What, in fact, do they do?

Mr. Griffiths: That is another question, a question of major policy. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put it on the Order Paper.

Italians (Employment)

Mr. Alport: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Italian citizens have been imported into Kenya for road building and for work on the military base at Mackinnon Road.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. John Dugdale): We are asking the Acting Governor for the latest figures. When they are received my right hon. Friend will write to the hon. Member.

Mr. Alport: When considering this question, will the Minister bear in mind the possibility of using Maltese for this purpose, as there is considerable unemployment in Malta? It would be far better for Maltese to be brought into a British colony than for Italians to be introduced.

Mr. Dugdale: I will certainly give consideration to that matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — GIBRALTAR

Taxation

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the dissatisfaction which has arisen in Gibraltar regarding the imposition of new taxation.

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the opposition to the proposed profits tax in Gibraltar.

Mr. J. Griffiths: It became clear last year that Gibraltar's revenues needed strengthening, and in July the Gibraltar Government published proposals for a modest tax assessed on trading profits to be paid by local trades and businesses. These proposals met with some criticism in the Colony, where, hitherto, direct taxation has been limited to an estate duty. The local Chamber of Commerce put forward proposals for an alternative form of trades tax but their proposals were, in the view of the Gibraltar Government, both inflexible and unfair, in that they would have placed the greater proportionate burden on the smaller concerns. It was, therefore, decided to go forward with the original scheme. The Gibraltar Government has shown great patience in this matter, and I am fully satisfied that the decision to go forward is right.

Mr. Gammans: Is it true that a delegation from Gibraltar is coming to this country to see the right hon. Gentleman about this matter?

Mr. Griffiths: Not to my knowledge.

Miss Horsbrugh: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether people from the Chamber of Commerce have already been here, and whether he will consider postponing this taxation until the Legislative Council is set up?

Mr. Griffiths: These proposals were put forward six months ago, and I am satisfied that they cannot be postponed until the Legislative Council is set up.

Constitution

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the implementation of the new Constitution in Gibraltar.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The constitutional instruments were made in February of this year and can be brought into force at any time. The election ordinance will shortly be published in draft for local consideration, and elections will probably be held in the autumn.

Mr. Hamilton: Would the Minister see that this election is speeded up, in view of the uneasiness that may be caused as a result of delay?

Mr. Griffiths: I appreciate the urgency of the matter. I have already indicated that the election will be held in the autumn. I do not think it could be held earlier.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA

Colonel A. H. Girdler

Wing-Commander Bullus: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give details of the murder by Malayan terrorists of Colonel A. H. Girdler, an administrative officer, of Leeds.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Colonel Girdler died on 5th April as a result of wounds he sustained when a police convoy in which he was travelling was attacked by bandits in the Kluang District, Johore. I am sure the House will wish to be associated with me in an expression of very deep sympathy to his widow and family.

Wing-Commander Bullus: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what extra safeguards, if any, have been introduced for Service personnel and for civilian personnel since this brutal murder?

Mr. Griffiths: I made a fairly full statement on this matter in the House quite recently.

Armoured Jeeps

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when a request

was received from the police and security forces in Malaya for armoured jeeps for themselves or for estate managers; and if any jeeps have been supplied.

Mr. J. Griffiths: No request for armoured jeeps has been received from the Malayan Government.

Mr. Gammans: Is not it a fact that requests for armoured vehicles similar to armoured jeeps have been received, and that the order was not fulfilled until after several months?

Mr. Griffiths: I think that a Question about armoured vehicles was put to and answered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War last week, or the week before.

Anti-Bandit Campaign

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what plans there are for the continuation and expansion of the voluntary effort shown in the anti-bandit month in Malaya.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Federal Government intends that opportunities for voluntary service shall continue; 25,000 volunteers will be needed for a variety of duties including squatter re-settlement and propaganda work, and service as uniformed auxiliary police, village guards and coast watchers. State and settlement organisers of the anti-bandit month are being retained.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he will not get a satisfactory voluntary effort in Malaya until he has made it much clearer than it is now that we intend to restore law and order and stay in complete control of the country for a very long time?

Mr. Griffiths: The Prime Minister quite recently re-affirmed our policy to that effect.

Mr. Wyatt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is much more important to canalise and capitalise the increased voluntary effort of the Chinese community, which was so well forthcoming in the recent anti-bandit month, than to go into all kinds of martial law exploits as indicated by the Opposition?

Mr. Griffiths: I have already indicated that we attach the utmost importance to this voluntary effort.

Sentenced Policemen

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies for what offence two police are serving sentences of imprisonment in Malaya; what were the sentences; and, in view of the strictures passed by the judge in pronouncing sentence, what action he proposes to take to prevent a recurrence of such incidents.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I assume that the hon. Member refers to the conviction of two European members of the Malayan Police Force for the offence of "voluntarily causing hurt" to a detainee for the purpose of extracting a confession. The sentences were rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and 18 months respectively, and no further action is, I consider, necessary, to show that conduct of this kind will not be tolerated.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that these ex-policemen were charged with torturing Chinese prisoners and that at the trial the judge said they were guilty of almost indescribable indecencies and studied cruelty? And will he see that these men are not put back into the Police Force?

Mr. Griffiths: These men have been sentenced, and I think that the trial and sentence are in themselves the answer.

Police Operations (Cost)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what were the costs of police operations in Malaya during 1948 and 1949; and what was the expenditure in these years on the Malayan C.I.D.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The total expenditure on police in the Federation of Malaya for 1948 and 1949 was approximately £4.9 million and £9.4 million respectively. This includes expenditure on buildings and such items as wireless equipment and also on the C.I.D., for which no separate accounts are kept.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the expenditure on C.I.D., which may, in the end, save a great many lives by getting good intelligence, is really adequate, and that

money and proper personnel are not being spared on this important subject?

Mr. Griffiths: I realise the importance of this work. We are anxious that it should not be impeded in any way by financial considerations.

Federal Legislative Council

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will take steps to increase the number of elected representatives on the Federal Legislative Council of Malaya.

Mr. Dugdale: There are at present no elected representatives on the Federal Legislative Council. It is hoped to make a start with elections to municipal councils next year, and thereafter to the Councils of those States and Settlements which are ready for them. Legislation for Federal elections will, in accordance with the terms of the Federation Agreement, be introduced as soon as circumstances permit.

Mr. Awbery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the best way to create confidence in Malaya is not to preach democracy to the people there, but to practice it by allowing them to elect their own legislative committees?

Mr. Dugdale: I have stated that we are already taking steps to introduce a system of elected representatives locally. No doubt it may be possible to do this later on a federal scale as well.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there have been consultations with the liaison committee in Malaya on this matter, and whether that committee has endorsed proposals for a coming election?

Mr. Dugdale: I should like notice of that.

Detained Persons

Mr. W. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many persons are held in detention for activities in connection with hostility and lawlessness in both the Malayan Federation and in Singapore on 1st April, 1950.

Mr. Dugdale: Figures for 1st April. 1950, are not available but on 15th March 10,093 persons were held in detention in the Federation of Malaya and, on the 31st March, 127 in Singapore.

Mr. Fletcher: Does that number show an increase or a decrease over the number 12 months ago?

Mr. Dugdale: I canot say without notice.

Chinese-speaking Police

Mr. W. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many members of the police force in the Federation of Malaya and in Singapore are qualified Chinese speakers; and how this figure compares with those with similar qualifications in 1939.

Mr. Dugdale: One hundred and fifty-five in the ranks of inspector and above and 742 in the rank and file. In 1939, there were 63 in the former categories, but we have no information of the number in other ranks.

Mr. Fletcher: Will the hon. Gentleman make certain that he maintains the maximum number of police officers who speak Chinese, as they are most efficient instruments in obtaining proper intelligence for the use and protection of our forces?

Mr. Dugdale: We attach great importance to that matter.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how many are ex-members of the Palestine Police Force?

Mr. Dugdale: That is quite another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH HONDURAS (MAYA INDIANS)

Mr. Peter Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what measures he is taking to promote the social and economic welfare of the Maya inhabitants of British Honduras.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Governor hopes in due course to create a special post of Maya Welfare Officer, who would be responsible for investigating and dealing with the special problems of the Maya Indians, and for maintaining close contact with them on behalf of the Government.

Mr. Smithers: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is his policy to give priority to getting settled on the

land those who are already resident in the Colony, as opposed to any people who may be brought in from outside?

Mr. Griffiths: That raises a very much wider issue, and I would rather see that question on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA (CONSTITUTION)

Mr. Alport: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the memorandum circulated by the Tanganyika Government to the unofficial members of the Tanganyika Legislative Council with regard to certain constitutional changes was circulated with his authority; and whether the proposals contained in it represent the views of his Department.

Mr. J. Griffiths: No, Sir. My predecessor was, of course, aware that the Governor intended to discuss constitutional revision with the unofficial members of Legislative Council, but he had not received a copy of the memorandum before it was issued. As regards the second part of the Question, these are suggestions circulated by the Governor. We and he await the views of the committee which is considering the matter in Tanganyika before coming to a final conclusion on the matter.

Mr. Alport: Is the Minister aware that there has been a great deal of agitation among all the rival communities concerned, which has led to results which, on the whole, have been unfortunate? Would it not have been better to have made quite clear from the beginning what the circumstances of these proposals were?

Mr. Griffiths: These matters are being discussed by a special committee which has been set up, and I think it would be better for everybody concerned, both here and over there, to await consideration by the committee and publication of their report.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH GUIANA (SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION)

Mr. Peter Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements have been made for the exchange of scientific data between the


Government of British Guiana on the one hand, and the neighbouring Latin American Republics and French and Dutch territories on the other.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Following a visit to British Guiana by the Governor of Surinam and the Prefect of French Guiana in February, 1949, there have been useful exchanges of visits and scientific information between technical officers of the three Governments. Similar visits have been exchanged with Brazil and Venezuela. Opportunities for the exchange of scientific data are also provided by the Caribbean Commission, and through international technical conferences in Central and South America.

Mr. Smithers: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be useful to extend the activities of the Caribbean Commission to include some neighbouring Latin-American republics?

Mr. Griffiths: I will consider that.

Oral Answers to Questions — CARIBBEAN COMMISSION

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what payments have been made by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, and by other Governments to the Caribbean Commission and to the Caribbean Research Council; and in what currencies these payments were made.

Mr. J. Griffiths: As the reply contains numerous figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

His Majesty's Government have made the following contributions to the budget of the Caribbean Commission since it was formed in 1946:


Financial year
£


1946–7
15,226


1947–8
28,693


1948–9
21,681


1949–50
36,541


1950–51 (Estimated contribution)
36,000

The expenses of the Caribbean Research Council are paid from the Commission's budget, and no separate contributions are made in respect of it. His Majesty's Government's agreed pro-

portionate share of the Commission's budget is 34.3 per cent.; the United States contributes 38.4 per cent.; France 16 per cent.; Netherlands 11.3 per cent. His Majesty's Government's contribution is paid in Trinidad currency.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD COAST

Government Salaries and Allowances

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction in the Gold Coast territories regarding the risks of inflation arising from the increase in Government salaries and allowances; and if he will make a statement as to the steps being taken in regard to this matter.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The recent increases in temporary allowances payable to civil servants in the Gold Coast were recommended by a Select Committee of African members of the Legislative Council and approved by the Governor, and I am not aware of any widespread dissatisfaction about them in the Gold Coast.

Mr. Keeling: But has not the Secretary of State read the Press on this subject? Is he aware that the risk of inflation in the Gold Coast is even greater than it is in this country? If it is right to refuse increases in Government salaries here. can it be wrong there?

Municipal Elections, Accra

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in the recent municipal elections in Accra candidate observers were allowed inside the polling booths and voters were asked for whom they wished to vote in the presence of other voters; and whether the Government of the Gold Coast will now take steps to ensure the secrecy of voting in all future elections.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is satisfied that the arrangements for municipal elections in the Gold Coast ensure secrecy.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Agents nominated by candidates were allowed inside polling booths by special pass for the purpose of challenging impersonators. In accordance with the procedure laid down by law, voters were asked by the recording


officer for whom they wished to vote, but only one person voted at a time and every effort was made to ensure that other voters did not hear for whom the vote was cast.
It is clear that these arrangements did not ensure secrecy, which is a matter to which I naturally attach the utmost importance. The Governor of the Gold Coast has, however, informed me that the procedure for municipal elections is now being re-examined with a view to introducing the secret ballot and a Select Committee of the Gold Coast Legislative Council is examining the organisation required for elections under the new Constitution.

Mr. Rankin: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that these changes will be made effective before the central elections take place in the Gold Coast?

Mr. Griffiths: We hope so. I shall press the matter forward as urgently as possible.

Mr. Keeling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that according to accounts of eye-witnesses, published in the Press, these elections bore a striking resemblance to the elections at Eatanswill in the bad old Whig days described in "Pickwick Papers"?

Mr. Griffiths: That is why the action I have indicated is being taken.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many cases of impersonation occurred in the municipal elections at Accra; and how many prosecutions have resulted.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Twenty-two cases of impersonation were reported to the police, who have taken up 15 of them. Of these 15 cases nine resulted in convictions, five are pending and one is under investigation.

Mr. Rankin: Can my right hon. Friend say anything about the penalties which are imposed for impersonation, and if he thinks that they are sufficient?

Mr. Griffiths: The penalties for impersonation are a fine not exceeding £50, or a term of imprisonment up to six months.

Mental Cases (Treatment)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many lunatics were committed to prison last year in the Gold Coast; and what accommodation in mental hospitals was available for them.

Mr. Dugdale: The Government of the Gold Coast has been asked to supply details. and my right hon. Friend will communicate with the hon. Member when they are received.

Mr. Erroll: When the Minister receives the details, will he examine the deplorable position under which a number of suspected lunatics have been put into pr-on because there are not sufficient places available in the mental hospitals of the Colony?

Mr. Dugdale: I shall go into the whole question.

Mr. Sorensen: At the same time, could my right hon. Friend secure figures for all the West African colonies?

Mr. Dugdale: That is a much bigger question.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL EMPIRE

Corporal Punishment

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the wide disparity in the circumstances in which corporal punishment can or cannot be inflicted in various British colonies, if he will inquire why this disparity exists and seek the general abolition of this form of punishment in all colonial areas; what, in general, are the views of native authorities on this matter; and. pending abolition, whether power to inflict corporal punishment will be reserved only for higher courts.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I am having a full examination made into the whole question of the infliction of corporal punishment throughout the Colonial Empire, and a statement will be made when this examination is completed.

Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand from the reply that my right hon. Friend is himself disquieted at the reports he has received about the frequency of flogging?

Mr. Griffiths: I think that an examination of the whole problem is desirable.

Economic Survey

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will arrange for a periodical economic and financial survey of the West African, the Caribbean and other colonial areas; and also the official registration and record of European, United States and Indian capital invested in colonial enterprises.

Mr. J. Griffiths: A new edition of the Economic Survey of the Colonial Empire is in preparation, though I fear it will still be some time before it is ready for publication. I will consider the suggestion in the second part of the Question.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the Minister say when this report is likely to be out, in view of its importance?

Mr. Griffiths: I realise its importance but I am sorry that I cannot give a date now.

Mr. David Renton: Will the Minister bear in mind that local customs and traditions vary very considerably, and that punishment should not necessarily be the same all over the Colonial Empire?

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Member's supplementary question relates to Question 2l, which we have already passed.

Extraditions

Mr. W. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many persons there were awaiting extradition from the Colonies on 1st January, 1949, 1st January, 1950, and 1st April, 1950.

Mr. Dugdale: I have not the information for which the hon. Member asks, since applications for extraditions are usually made direct by a foreign Government to the Colonial Government concerned. Should the hon. Member have any particular colony or group of colonies in mind I will make inquiries.

Cocoa Trees (Disease)

Mr. Peter Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement upon the progress of research into the control of swollen shoot virus of cocoa.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Research is being carried out continuously at the West African Cacao Research Institute at Tafo, in the Gold Coast, into the nature of this

disease, but the cutting out of all infected trees still remains the only means of controlling it.

Mr. Smithers: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen reports in the Press that control of the disease by means of parasitic fungi is having some success, and, as this is of great importance, can he not make a statement about the prospects in this direction?

Mr. Griffiths: No, Sir. Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAMAICA

Religious Customs

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Hindu and Islamic religious customs are recognised by the Government of Jamaica; and what facilities exist to enable the cremation of the dead to be observed in Jamaica.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Government of Jamaica have discussed the question of the recognition of marriages between East Indians with representatives of the Hindu and Muslim communities in the Colony, and amending legislation is now being drafted. As regards the second part of the Question, it has been decided to introduce legislation providing for the establishment of cremation under suitable conditions.

Mr. Sorensen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that up to now obstruction has been put in the way of these communities in dealing with the dead in the way they traditionally desire to do?

Mr. Griffiths: I think the fact that amending legislation is being prepared indicates that these desires have been taken into account.

Mr. Sorensen: Pending that, can the Minister take some action to see that this obstruction is removed forthwith?

Mr. Griffiths: I will consider that.

Tobacco Industry

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to provide alternative employment for the workers rendered redundant in the tobacco industry of Jamaica owing to the reduction in imports into the United Kingdom.

Mr. Dugdale: This is a matter that falls within the competence of the Jamaica Government, who informed my right hon. Friend that it is not possible to say to what extent workers who have left the cigar industry have been able to obtain employment in other industries.

Oral Answers to Questions — BERMUDA (EMPLOYMENT)

Mr. Hamilton: asked Vile Secretary of State for the Colonies what plans the Government has for the employment of labour in Bermuda now that the dockyard is closing down.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Government of Bermuda has at present no special plans for the absorption of Bermudians employed at His Majesty's Dockyard into other forms of employment when the dockyard closes. The Bermuda Government Labour Board keep the situation under constant review, and foresee no difficulty in absorbing this labour into other local employment.

Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any delegation has arrived in this country to discuss the matter?

Mr. Griffiths: A delegation has been in this country to discuss the closing of the dockyard, and a statement was issued after the discussion we had with them.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIERRA LEONE (CONSTITUTION)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Governor of Sierra Leone has yet set up a committee to consider his predecessor's proposals for revising the Constitution; and whether a chairman has been appointed.

Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir. The introduction of the new constitution for Sierra Leone, approved by the Legislative Council and my right hon. Friend's predecessor in 1948, was deferred for further review at the request of the unofficial members. The representatives of the Colony have however renewed demands for a larger proportion of seats, which the Protectorate representatives are not prepared to concede in view of the comparative populations. In a statement to the Legislative Council, now in session, the Governor

has urged the unofficial members to reach agreement and has stated that if they cannot do so he can see no alternative to introducing the approved constitution forthwith. I do not wish to express a view on this last point while discussions may be proceeding locally; but my right hon. Friend most strongly supports the Governor's plea that all possible efforts to reach agreement should be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA

Livestock Commission

Mr. Paget: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Report of the Nigerian Livestock Commission will be published.

Mr. Dugdale: We have not yet had an opportunity of reading the Report. If my hon. Friend will put down a Question a little later, my right hon. Friend will be able to give him a definite reply.

Mr. Paget: Is it not a fact that the Report has been in the hands of the Secretary of State for something like eight months?

Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir. That is not a fact, because my right hon. Friend has not been in office for eight months.

Cameroons (Trusteeship Council)

Mr. A. Edward Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now received the Report of the Governor of Nigeria on the future of the Cameroons and the findings of the Trusteeship Council.

Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir.

Mr. Davies: Can my right hon. Friend say when the Report is expected?

Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir. The Governor has had it for only a short time. It would not be reasonable to press him to give an immediate reply, but I hope that it will not be very long before we get one.

Zikist Movement

Mr. Edward Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on recent events in Nigeria which led to the suppression of the Zikist Movement.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Governor of Nigeria, in Council, has declared the so-called Zikist Movement an unlawful society under Section 62 of the Criminal Code. In announcing this decision, the Governor stated that conclusive evidence had been obtained that the Movement, which has a small membership of a few hundred people, is an organisation which seeks to pursue seditious aims by lawlessness and violence. He added that the purposes and methods of the Movement are dangerous to the good government of Nigeria. This action has been taken by the Governor with the unanimous advice of his Executive Council, including African members. The matter is one for the Governor in Council to decide, but I agree that where there is evidence of incitement to disorder and violence such action is justified.

Mr. Sorensen: Has my right hon. Friend information to show that Dr. Azikiwe has nothing to do with this movement, that the Zikist Movement itself is a breakaway from the National Council for Nigeria and the Cameroons, and has nothing to do with the former body?

Mr. Griffiths: Dr. Azikiwe has announced publicly that he is not the founder of this Movement and does not support it.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAMBIA (POULTRY SCHEME)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any further information as to when eggs may first reach this country from the Gambia Poultry Project; and what his estimate is of the total number of eggs which may be imported annually from Gambia when the scheme is in full operation.

Mr. Dugdale: We understand that both eggs and poultry will probably be available for import into this country next June. As regards the second part of this Question, the total number of eggs available for import when the scheme is in full operation is estimated at 20 million a year.

Mr. Grimond: In view of the great possibilities of increasing egg production at home, and the difficulties with

which I understand this scheme has met over soil erosion and vitamin deficiencies in the hens, does not the Minister feel that these eggs might be rather more easily got in our own country and that possibly Gambia might be helped more satisfactorily in other ways?

Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir. I think that this scheme is starting off very successfully, and I hope that it will succeed and produce more eggs for this country.

Mr. Russell: Is the Minister satisfied that there will be adequate feedingstuffs available for this scheme?

Mr. Dugdale: As far as I know but, as far as possible, I should like questions of detail to be asked of the responsible body, which is the Colonial Development Corporation. I am only responsible here for questions of general principle.

Sir H. Williams: Has the right hon. Gentleman had his attention drawn to the fact that there has been a very great increase in the number of baboons in the Gambia territory which have consumed half the groundnut crop there, and will he take steps to see that they do not consume the eggs as well?

Oral Answers to Questions — UGANDA (RIOTS)

Mr. Alport: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in agreement with the findings of the Commission appointed to report on the riots which took place in Uganda in 1949; and whether it is intended to take any action against Semakula Mulumba.

Mr. Dugdale: I am sending the hon. Member copies of the Governor's commentary on the Report and of my right hon. Friend's predecessor's despatch of 31st January expressing general agreement with the commentary. It has not yet proved possible to take action against Semakula Mulumba in the United Kingdom, where he at present lives.

Mr. Alport: Does that mean that this man, whose activities were referred to by the Commission as being responsible primarily for the disturbances which took place, is likely to get away scot free?

Mr. Dugdale: That is a hypothetical question. At present, he is in England


and action is not being taken against him. Were he in Uganda, I have no doubt that the position might be different.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOCKYARD EXTENSIONS, PORTSMOUTH

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when he will give a decision as to the extent of land required for docks and extensions at Portsmouth, since city rebuilding operations in adjoining, areas cannot take place until this has been given.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) on 19th April.

Sir J. Lucas: Not being aware of that reply, may I ask the Minister if the Portsmouth authority can be informed of the land which will not be required, as all of it is at present sterilised?

Mr. Edwards: I must say that the hon. and gallant Gentleman could quite easily have discovered what that reply was if he had looked in HANSARD, but the position is that we have notified a new scheme to the Portsmouth Corporation which is now under consideration by them.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (LICENCES)

Mr. Black: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Herbert Committee Report on the work of intermediaries reveals that some 19,370,000 applications for licences were dealt with by the various Government Departments during the course of a year; and what steps he proposes to take to reduce this volume of unproductive paper work.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir. This work has already been much reduced by the many relaxations of controls which have been announced from time to time by the Ministers responsible. Further relaxations will be made whenever possible.

Mr. Blackburn: Is the Prime Minister aware that, unlike the hon. Member

opposite, most people in this country were delighted by this Report, which shows that our Civil Service is more honest and more free from corruption than any other Civil Service in the world?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES

Cadets (British Railways Employees)

Mr. Sidney Marshall: asked the Minister of Defence what arrangements he is making with British Railways for members of the Sea Cadets, the Army Cadet Corps, and the Air Training Corps to be released to attend their annual camps; and whether such cadets will receive any pay.

The Prime Minister: The British Transport Commission is at present considering the matter.

Mr. Marshall: In view of the importance of the matter, which ought to be decided as soon as possible this year, can the Prime Minister say when we shall hear the result of the deliberations?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry, but I could not catch what the hon. Member said.

Mr. Marshall: In view of the importance of encouraging the recruitment of these young cadets, may we know when the British Transport Commission is likely to make a decision?

The Prime Minister: I cannot give a date, but it is under active consideration. The application is now before them.

Service Personnel (Petrol Allowance)

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Minister of Defence if, in view of the increased cost of petrol, if he will now raise the mileage allowance of Service personnel using private cars on duty.

The Prime Minister: The matter is under consideration. My right hon. Friend hopes that a decision will not be long delayed.

Brigadier Clarke: Would the Prime Minister say why these people are not treated like commercial travellers, who will gain by the extra cost of petrol? They will certainly lose.

Pensions

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Minister of Defence if he will inform Service personnel what pension they have earned immediately prior to retirement and see that their pension or a portion of it is paid within a month of their terminal leave.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is afraid that it is not practicable at present, owing to shortages of staff and for other reasons, to introduce generally arrangements for notifying rates of retired pay and pensions before retirement. But there is no undue delay, and cases in which payments are not made within a month of terminal leave are, I am advised, unusual, except where payment is on a quarterly basis

Brigadier Clarke: As quite a number of cases have come to my notice of people who did not get paid within two months, and as it is a considerable inconvenience to poorly-paid other ranks, could he speed up the payment of these pensions?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. and gallant Member has specific cases perhaps he will put them before the Service Minister concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE (INTERNATIONAL FORCE)

Mr. Garner-Evans: asked the Minister of Defence whether, at a forthcoming meeting of the North Atlantic Defence Committee, he will initiate an investigation into the possibilities of establishing a voluntarily recruited international force to facilitate the implementation of the defence policy on which agreement has already been reached.

The Prime Minister: While my right hon. Friend appreciates the hon. Member's suggestion, he is not at present convinced that it would be useful to propose the creation of an international force on the lines put forward.

Mr. Garner-Evans: In view of the fact that this proposal has been in the programme of the Labour Party for the last 264 years, is it not time that some investigation was done on this point, preferably on an international scale?

The Prime Minister: I am answering the specific point put to me by the hon.

Gentleman with regard to a voluntarily recruited international force. I think he will realise that it is a subject too large to be discussed by means of questions and answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Irish Cream

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Food what were the details of the offer recently made by the Eireann Government to supply cream to this country; why he refused it; and if he will permit private individuals and firms to import Irish cream.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Maurice Webb): This offer was in general terms, and no details were discussed. On the second and third parts of the Question, I should like to refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North (Wing-Commander Bullus) on 24th April,

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In amplification of that reply, can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the basis of the refusal to permit this importation on private account, in view of the fact that these other luxury products are now freely imported?

Mr. Webb: There arc two considerations. First of all, we would like the Irish to offer us their excess milk in the form of butter rather than cream, and we would take all their butter. The second consideration is that we want to get our own cream industry going again. As a result of the talks last week I think we can get a large part of it—or, if not a large part, some part of it—in operation in a few weeks' time. I would rather do that and consider the Irish question later.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does that answer mean that the right hon. Gentleman anticipates being able to announce trading in cream by British producers?

Mr. Webb: Yes, in some parts of the country in the course of the next few weeks.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: What British housewives did the Minister canvass to find out whether they would resent the importation of cream?

Deep-Freeze Facilities

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Minister of Food for what estimated quantities of perishable goods, including meat, his Department possesses deep-freeze facilities.

Mr. Webb: My Department does not possess any such facilities.

Mr. Blackburn: Does the Minister agree that it would be a great help to this country to have extensive deep-freezing facilities in connection with our policy of the bulk purchase of meat? Will he pay attention to this urgent matter?

Mr. Webb: A lot of things would be of great help to this country if we could get them. This is one we are looking at, but there is no immediate prospect of getting it.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Would the Minister not agree that it would be better to have chilled meat rather than frozen meat?

Meat

Mr. Oakshott: asked the Minister of Food if he has considered the particulars given by the President of the National Federation of Meat Traders Association on 17th April, 1950, of which details have been sent to him, regarding the large stocks of meat in the country; and whether he will make a statement on the future position of meat rationing.

Mr. Webb: Our stocks of meat are by no means excessive in the light of the important negotiations for future supplies now going on. For the same reason, I cannot at present make any statement about the future of the meat ration.

Mr. Oakshott: Is it not a fact that the poor quality of much of the meat in cold storage is causing a drop in consumer demand? What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to avoid a loss to the taxpayer through deterioration in accumulated stocks of meat?

Mr. Webb: I would not say that there is widespread complaint about quality. There are some complaints, all of which we investigate, but, broadly, we feel "bullish" about meat.

Sweets

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether more ingredients for the manufacture of sweets for the home

market can be given to the British sweet manufacturers so as to make more British sweets available for British children; and whether the system of sending sweets to Poland and Czechoslovakia and receiving sweets from them can be curtailed or abolished.

Mr. Webb: No, Sir. The manufacture of more sweets would require sugar which I cannot spare. Our foreign trade in sweets with Poland and Czechoslovakia is very small indeed in relation to the total supply, and no good purpose would be served by curtailing or abolishing it.

Mr. De la Bèret: Is the Minister aware that the failure of the derationing of sweets was entirely due to the failure of the Government to provide the proper ingredients? It will be the same this time.

Irish Produce (Negotiations)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Food what success he has had in his negotiations with the Irish Minister of Agriculture with the object of improving the national food supply.

Mr. Webb: The discussions are not yet concluded.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Can the Minister say what kinds of food were discussed, and whether he is aware of the importance of speed in this matter lest he may be forestalled by agreements being concluded with some other Governments?

Mr. Webb: Yes. We are discussing eggs, and bacon arriving in this country on the trotter, rather than in bacon form.

Mr. Mitchison: Are there any Irish bulls?

Flour

Mr. Wood: asked the Minister of Food if he will remove the regulation limiting the purchase of flour to a quantity not exceeding 28 lb. at any one time.

Mr. Webb: No, Sir. This regulation is intended to discourage large purchases of flour for illicit feeding to livestock. But people who need to buy more than 28 lb., such as home bakers or farmers and others in outlying districts, can get authority to do so from the local food office, so that no hardship is imposed on the legitimate consumer.

Mr. Wood: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it queer that the farmer is allowed to feed one quarter of his home produced wheat to his stock and yet is only allowed to buy flour for his family and his workmen in such small quantities?

Mr. Webb: That is rather a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. I agree that, on the whole, this is rather a clumsy regulation, but it does for the moment serve its purpose, and until we are sure of our ground on a wider basis I would rather keep it going.

Mr. Turton: While serving the Minister's purpose, it is causing a great deal of inconvenience in country areas and will the right hon. Gentleman look at the matter again and try and avoid the necessity of wholesale application by allowing larger purchases of flour in the more remote districts? If he could remove the regulation from those areas, it would be much better.

Mr. Webb: indicated assent.

Beef and Hog Casings

Mr. John Grimston: asked the Minister of Food if he will allow the import and re-export of beef casings from South America in order that this valuable entrepôt trade be retained in this country.

Mr. Webb: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I hope to allow this trade in beef casings from some parts of South America, and I will write to the hon. Member about this as soon as possible. But I should mention that this trade with Argentina is barred by the present trade agreement.

Mr. J. Grimston: asked the Minister of Food why imports of hog casings which originated in the United States are being made from the Continent of Europe at 17s. 6d. per bundle when they could be bought direct from the United States at 10s. 8d. per bundle, thereby depreciating the rate of exchange to $1.70 to the pound.

Mr. Webb: I am not aware that any United States hog casings are being imported from Europe, but if the hon. Member will give me details I shall be glad to look into the matter.

Strawberry Pulp

Mr. David Renton: asked the Minister of Food how much strawberry pulp will be imported from Holland during 1950; and how much of that total quantity was bought from Holland for the 1949 season, but delivery thereof postponed.

Mr. Webb: Imports of strawberry pulp from Holland will come in on private account as from 1st June, 1950, and I cannot predict what the quantity will be. The second part of the Question does not. therefore, arise.

Mr. Renton: Is it not a fact that last year the Ministry of Food bought a good deal of strawberry pulp from Holland which was surplus to this country's requirements, and that it is being imported again this year? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that has been stated in the Press, and that his reply did not answer the part of the Question in respect to it?

Mr. Webb: That matter does not arise on this Question, and I would rather have it put down separately.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the amount of pulp which is still in this country from last year's crop may very well make it very difficult for growers to dispose of their home crop this year?

Rabbits

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Food what reply he has given to the offer made by telegram on 30th March, 1950, to purchase his accumulated stocks of Australian and New Zealand rabbits.

Mr. Webb: This offer was conditional on our providing tinplate to can the rabbits. Because we are short of tinplate, we cannot provide more than a token quantity for export samples. But we have told the firm concerned that if they wish to manufacture the rabbit product as an open pack product or in glass jars, we will let them have as many rabbits as they can use and pay for.

Russian Barley

Mr. Renton: asked the Minister of Food how many tons of barley were imported from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during the 12 months ending


31st March, 1950; and in what manner has it been or will it be disposed of by his Department.

Mr. Webb: Two hundred and sixty-five thousand tons. More than half has already been distributed in the animal feeding-stuffs ration, and the balance will be used in the same way.

Mr. Renton: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that purchasers of this Russian barley from the Ministry of Food are not compelled or persuaded to include a certain proportion of Russian barley in their total purchase?

Pigs (Knaresborough Collecting Centre)

Mr. York: asked the Minister of Food why bacon pigs sent to the Knaresborough collecting centre during the week ended 22nd April have been allocated to a slaughterhouse instead of to a bacon factory.

Mr. Webb: Because of exceptionally heavy supplies the factories could not handle all the bacon pigs.

Captain Soames: Have these greater supplies been handed on to the consumer's breakfast table?

Crops, Tanganyika

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food if he will inform the House of the reports which he has received from the Overseas Food Corporation on the harvest prospects for the sunflower and groundnut crops grown this season in Tanganyika.

Mr. Webb: The Overseas Food Corporation have not yet made any forecast of the probable outcome of the harvest which is just beginning. They will issue a preliminary report as soon as there is sufficient reliable information on which to base an estimate.

Mr. Hurd: In view of the many uncertainties that still persist about the scheme, will the Minister now set up an expert committee so that he is prepared for another crop failure at Kongwa?

Mr. Webb: We are looking into the whole question of groundnuts, and, in due course, the House will have the information.

Mr. Blackburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Tory Party obviously believe in a policy of not developing the British Empire?

Catering Establishments (Meals)

Mr. G. R. Howard: asked the Minister of Food if he will now make a statement as to whether fish may now he served as an additional course in hotels. restaurants, canteens and other catering establishments.

Mr. Webb: This is one of the questions covered by the Meals in Establishments Order, about which I hope to make a statement within the next week or so.

Mr. Howard: I hope that will be possible, as it will give a great deal of relief to many people in this country.

Iodised Salt

Mr. Hugh Fraser: asked the Minister of Food whether the iodisation of salt will have any appreciable effect upon its taste; and what effect such treatment have on the price of pre-packed free-running salt so iodised.

Mr. Webb: I can assure the hon. Member that neither taste nor price will be affected.

Dried Egg

Mr. H. Fraser: asked the Minister of Food what is the price at which he purchases dried eggs per pound from the United States of America; at what price his Department wholesales these dried eggs to the public; and, in view of the growing belief that his Department's margin of profit is unreasonably high, if he will now reduce the price.

Mr. Webb: The average price of dried egg bought from the U.S.A. during the past 12 months is 31 cents per lb. f.o.b. The present Ministry selling price is 9s. 81d. per lb., but this price cannot be related solely to the exceptional American purchase.

Mr. Fraser: On a point of Order. I was unable to hear the Minister's answer. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Palestine won by a short head, too.

Mr. Speaker: Was the hon. Member asking me something about the Question? I was not quite sure, because I could not hear what was happening.

Mr. Fraser: I was unable to hear the Minister's reply to Question No. 68, Sir.

Mr. Webb: Perhaps what the hon. Gentleman wanted to know was that the Government have won Dumbartonshire, West, by 293.

Vegetables

Mr. Awbery: asked she Minister of Food if he is satisfied that the prospects of the supply of spring vegetables are such that a reduction in the present high prices may be expected shortly.

Mr. Webb: April and May are "between season "months when supplies are normally short, but this year the supply is below normal, mainly as a result of last summer's drought. An improvement in the supply must await favourable weather.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that the prices of these vegetables are now prohibitive to the working classes; and will he speed up the inquiry which is being made into the cost of vegetables as between producer and consumer?

Tea

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Food whether in view of the rise in the producers' price, he proposes to make any change in the retail price of Indian tea.

Mr. Webb: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — HORSES (EXPORT AND SLAUGHTER)

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Minister of Food whether he has now given consideration to recommendations (f) to (n), and (r)of the Departmental Committee on the Export and Slaughter of Horses; and what action it is proposed to take.

Mr. Webb: Most of the recommendations to which the hon. Member refers could be implemented only by legislation, which it would be difficult to restrict to horse slaughtering. Consequently, wider questions of policy are raised, and I am consulting my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health about them.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable urgency, in view

of the questions of feeding and stabling of these horses? Will he do his best to expediate a decesion?

Oral Answers to Questions — HORSE-FLESH (EXPORT LICENCES)

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Minister of Food what action he intends to take with regard to the issue of a limited number of licences for the export of horse-flesh in order to keep the market open; how many licences have already been issued; and to whom.

Mr. Webb: None of these licences has yet been issued. We have received four applications, which I will deal with without delay.

Oral Answers to Questions — MISSING TRAWLER (SEARCH)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr.DONNELLY:

104. To ask the Minister of Transport if he has any statement to make regarding the loss of the trawler, the "Milford Viscount" with all hands during April.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): With permission, I desire to answer Question No. 104.
The motor trawler "Milford Viscount," built in 1947, left Castletown, Berehaven, County Cork, on 30th March, with a crew of 13, for the Porcupine fishing grounds about 100 miles off Slyne Head on the west coast of Ireland. She was expected back at Milford Haven on 16th April, but did not arrive. A search has been conducted by sea and air over a wide area without success. Her owners have had no news of her since 1st April, except a report that a lifebuoy belonging to her was washed ashore near Ballybunnion, County Kerry, on 20th April. She has not yet been posted as missing at Lloyd's. If the vessel is not found I will arrange for a preliminary inquiry to be held under the Merchant Shipping Acts.

Mr. Donnelly: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask him to pursue his inquiries further, especially as to why the Admiralty were


not more co-operative in sending ships to undertake this search, particularly in view of the fact that a volunteer crew from Milford Haven put to sea and 25 other trawlers from other fishing grounds also took part in the search, at considerable personal cost and inconvenience to people in the fishing industry?

Mr. Barnes: I have been assured that the search has been very widespread and very extensive.

Mr. Donnelly: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great resentment caused in Milford at the failure of the Navy to participate in the search? Is he also aware of the effect that this may have on recruiting for the Royal Naval Reserve?

Mr. Barnes: I certainly wish to repudiate entirely any suggestion that the Navy would ever be backward in an emergency of this kind.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Can my right hon. Friend say whether such ships are compulsorily installed with wireless, and, if not, whether steps may be taken to see that such installations are required in future?

Mr. Barnes: Until the investigation takes place, it is not right to assume that there have been any deficiencies anywhere.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION

FOOD SUPPLIES (PRIVATE ENTERPRISE)

Mr. Turton: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 12th May, I shall call attention to the need for a quicker return to private enterprise in the procurement of food, and move a resolution.

PRIVATE ROAD HAULIERS

Mr. McAdden: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 12th May, I shall call attention to the plight of private road hauliers resulting from the nationalisation of long-distance road transport, and move a resolution.

EXPORTS (EX-ENEMY COMPETITION)

Mr. Maudling: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 12th May, I shall call attention to the growing seriousness of ex-enemy competition in export markets, and move a resolution.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (PRIVATE BUSINESS)

Ordered:
That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), any Private Business set down for consideration at Seven o'clock this evening, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means. may be taken after Nine o'clock."— [Mr. H. Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

REPORT [18th April]

Resolutions reported.

Question. "The this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put forthwith on each Resolution pursuant to Standing Order No. 86 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions).

[For particulars of Resolutions, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th April, 1950; Vol. 474, c. 80-89.]

First Resolution—Hydro-Carbon Oils (rate of customs duty and rebate)—read a Second time.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 304; Noes, 299.

Division No. 7.
AYES
13.37 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Davies, Harold(Leek)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Adams, Richard
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Houghton, Douglas


Albu, A. H.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hoy, J.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hubbard, T.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Deer, G.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Delargy, H. J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Diamond, J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Dodds, N. N.
Hughes, R. M. (Islington, N.)


Awbery, S. S.
Donnelly, D.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Ayles, W. H.
Donovan, T. N.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Bacon, Miss A
Driberg, T. E. N.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Baird, J.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. J. (W. Bromwich)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Balfour, A.
Dye, S.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A


Barnes, RI. Hon. A. J.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Janner, B.


Bartley, P.
Edelman, M.
Jay, D. P. T.


Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Jeger, G. (Goole)


Benson, G.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.)


Beswlck, F.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jenkins, R. H.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A.(Ebbw Vale)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Johnson, J. (Rugby)


Bing, G. H. C.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Blackburn, A. R.
Ewart, R.
Jones, D. T (Hartlepool)


Blenkinsop, A.
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Blyton, W. R.
Field, Capt. W. J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Boardman, H
Finch, H. J.
Jones, W E. (Conway)


Booth, A.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Keenan, W


Bottomley, A. G
Follick, M
Kenyon, C.


Bowden, H W.
Foot, M. M.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Bowles, F G. (Nuneaton)
Forman, J. C.
King, H. M.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Fraser, T (Hamilton)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E


Brockway, A. Fenner
Freeman, J. (Watford)
Kinley, J.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Lang, Rev. G.


Brooks, 1'. J. (Normanton)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Lee, F. (Newton)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Lee Miss J. (Cannock)


Brown, George (Belper)
Gibson, C. W
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Gilzean, A.
Lever, N. H. (Cheetham)


Burke, W. A.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Lewis, A. W. J (West Ham, N.)


Burton, Miss E.
Gooch, E. G.
Lewis, J. (Bolton, W.)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Lindgren, G. S.


Callaghan, James
Greenwood, A W J. (Ressendale)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Carmichael, James
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Logan, D. G.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Grenfell, D. R.
Longden, F. (Small Heath)


Champion, A. J.
Grey, C. F.
McAllister, G.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
MacColl, J. E.


Clunie, J.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
McGhee, H. G


Cocks, F S
Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)
McGovern, J.


Coldrick, W
Gunter, R. J.
McInnes, J.


Collick, P.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mack, J. D.


Collindridge, F
Hale, J. (Rochdale)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Cook, T. F.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Reading, N.)


Cooper, G. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)
McLeavy, F.


Cooper, J. (Deptford)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Coine Valley)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Corbel, Mrs. F K. (Peckham)
Hamilton, W. W.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Cove, W G.
Hannan, W.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hardman, D. R
Mainwaring, W. H.


Crawley, A.
Hardy, E. A
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S
Hargreaves, A.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Crosland, C. A R.
Harrison, J.
Mann, Mrs. J.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Manuel, A. C.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hayman, F. N.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A


Daines, P.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Tipton)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Herbison, Miss M.
Mellish, R. J


Darling, G. (Hillsboro')
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Messer, F.


Davies, Edward (Stoke, N.)
Hobson, C. R.
Middleton, Mrs. L


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Holman, P.
Mikardo, Ian




Mitchison, G. R.
Reid, W. (Camlachie)
Tomney, F.


Moeran, E. W
Rhodes. H
Turner-Samuels, M


Monslow, W.
Robens, A
Usborne, Henry


Moody, A. S
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Morgan, Dr. H. B
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Viant, S. P.


Morley, R
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wallace, H. W


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kenisngton, N.)
Watkins, T. E.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Webb, Rt. Hon M (Bradford. C)


Mort, D. L
Royle, C.
Weitzman, D


Moyle, A.
Shackleton, E. A. A
Wells, P. L (Faversham)


Mulley, F. W.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H
Wells, W. T (Walsall)


Murray, J
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
West, D. G.


Nally, W
Shurmer, P. L. E
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh. E.)


Neal, H.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
White, H. (Derbyshire. N E.)


O'Brien T.
Simmons, C.J
Wigg, George


Oldfield, W. H.
Slater, J.
 Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B


Oliver, G. H.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wilkes, L.


Orbach, M.
Smith H.N. (Nottingham, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Padley, W. E.
Snow, J. W
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Paget, R. T.
Sorensen, R. W.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Paling, Rt. Hn. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir F.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Sparks, J. A.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Pannell, T. C.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Patgiter, G. A.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Parker, J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Huyton)


Paton, J.
Strauss, Rt. Hon.G. R. (Vauxhall)
Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)


Pearson, A.
Stross, Dr. B.
Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)


Pearl, T. F.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith
Wise, Major F. J.


Poole, Cecil
Sylvester, G. O.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Popplewell, E.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Woods, Rev. G. S.


Porter, G.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wyatt, W. L.


Price, M. Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Yates, V. F.


Proctor, W. T.
Thomas, I. R. (Rhondda, W.)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Pursey, Comdr. H
Thomas, T. George (Cardiff)



Rankin, J.
Thorneycroft, Hary (Clayton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rees, Mrs. D.
Thurtle, Ermest
Mr. William Whiteley and


Reeves, J.
Timmons, J.
Mr. R. J. Taylor.


Reid, T. (Swindon)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.





NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S
Foster, J. G.


Alport, C. J. M.
Clarke, Col. R. S. (East Grinstead)
Fraser, Hon. H. C. P. (Stone)


Amery, J. (Preston, N.)
Clarke, Brig. T. H. (Portsmouth, W.)
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)


Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Clyde, J. L.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M


Arbuthnot, J. S.
Colegate, A
Gage, C. H.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)


Astor, Hon. M.
Cooper, A. E. (Ilford, S.)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Baker, P.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Gammans, L. D.


Baldock, J. M
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)


Baldwin, A. E.
Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)
Gates, Maj. E. E.


Banks, Col. C.
Cranborne, Viscount
George, Lady M. Lloyd


Baxter, A. B.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Glyn, Sir R.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Cross, Rt. Hon. Sir R.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A


Bell, R. M. (S. Buckinghamshire)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Granville, E (Eye)


Bennett, Sir P (Edgbaston)
Crouch, R. F.
Gridley, Sir A.


Bennett, R. F. B. (Gosport)
Crowder, F. P. (Ruislip, N'thwood)
Grimond, J.


Bennett, W. G. (Woodside)
Crowder, Capt. John F. E. (F'chleY)
Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)


Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)
Cundif, F. W.
Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)


Birch, Nigel
Cuthbert, W. N.
Harden, J R. E.


Bishop, F. P.
Darling, Sir W. Y. (Edinburgh, S.)
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)


Black, C. W.
Davidson, Viscountess
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (M'tgomery)
Harris, R. R. (Heston)


Boothby, R.
Davies, Nigel (Epping)
Harvey, Air-Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Bossom, A. C
de Chair; S.
Harvey, I. (Harrow, E.)


Bowen, R.
De la Bere, R.
Hay, John


Bower, N.
Deedes, W. F.
Head, Brig. A. H.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Digby, S. Wingfield.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Dodds-Parker, A. D
Heald, L. F.


Braine, B
Donner, P. W.
Heath, Colonel E. G. R.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Drayson, G. B.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Brooke, H. (Hampstead)
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Higgs, J. M. C.


Browne. J. N. (Govan)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Dunglass, Lord
Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Duthie, W. S.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


BuIlus, Wing-Commander E. E.
Eccles, D. M.
Hirst, G. A. N.


Burden, Squadron-Leader F. A.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Hollis, M. C.


Butcher, H. W.
Elliot, Lieut.-Col. RI. Hon. Walter
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)


Butter, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Erroll, F. J.
Hope, Lord J.


Carr, L. R. (Mitcham)
Fisher, N. T. L.
Hopkinson, H.


Carson, Hon. E.
Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.


Channon, N.
Fort, R.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence







Howard, G. R. (St. Ives)
Maude, A. E. U. (Ealing, S.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Howard, S. G. (Cambridgeshire)
Maude, J. C (Exeter)
Smithers, Sir W. (Orpington)


Hudson, Sir A. U M (Lewisham, N.)
Maudling, R.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Medhoot, Brigadier F
Snadden, W McN


Hudson, W R. A (Hull, N.)
Mellor, Sir J
Soames, Capt.


Hulbert, Wing-Cdr N. J
Molson, A. H E
Spearman, A. C. M.


Hurd, A. R
Moore, Lt.-Col Sir T.
Spence, H R. (Aberdeenshire, W)


Hutchinson, G. (Ilford, N.)
Morris, R. Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Spens, Sir P (Kensington, S.)


Hutchison, LL-Corn. Clark (E'b'rgh, W)
Morrison, Maj. J G (Salisbury)
Stanley, RI Hon. O. (Bristol, W.)


Hyde, H M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. R (N Fylde)


Hylton-Foster, H. B
Moll-Radclyffe, C. E
Stevens, G P


Jeffreys, General Sir G
Nabarro, G
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Jennings, R
Nicholls, H.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Johnson, H. S (Kemptown)
Nicholson, G.
Storey, S


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Nield, B. (Chester)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Stuart, Rt. Hon J. (Moray)


Kaberry, D.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Summers, G. S


Keeling, E. H
Nutting, Anthony
Sutcliffe, H.


Kerr, H. W (Cambridge)
Oakshott, H. D.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Odey, G. W.
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N)


Lambert, Hon. G
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Teeling, William


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Thomas, J. P L (Hereford)


Langford-Holt, J
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thompson, K. P. (Walton)


Law, Rt Hon. R. K.
Orr-Ewing, Charles I. (Hendon, N.)
Thompson, R. H. M. (Croydon, W.)


Leather, E. H. C.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Thorneycroft, G E. P (MoInnut)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Osborne, C.
Thornton-Kemsley, C N


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O
Thorp, Brigadier R A F.


Lindsay, Martin
Perkins, W. R. D.
Tilney, J. D.


Linstead, H. N.
Pete, Brig. C. H. M.
Touche, G. C.


Llewellyn, D.
Pickthorn, K.
Tartan, R. H.


Lloyd, RI. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Pitman, t
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Powell, J. Enoch
Vane, W. M. F


Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Prescott, Stanley
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K


Lockwood, Lt.-Col J. C.
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Vesper, D. F.


Longtlen, G. J. M (Herts. S.W.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O
Wade, D. W.


Low, A. R. W.
Profumo, J. D.
Wakefield, E. B. (Derbyshire, W)


Lucas, Major Sir J. (Portsmouth, S.)
Raikes, H. V.
Wakefield, Sir W. W. (St. MarYlebone)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Redmayne, M.
Ward, Hon. G R. (Worcester)


Lyttelton RI Hon. O.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Ward, Miss I (Tynemouth)


McAdden, S. J
Renton, D. L. M.
Waterhouse, Capt. C


McCallum, Maj. D.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Watkinson, H.


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Macdonald, A. J. F. (Roxburgh)
Roberts, P. G. (Healey)
Webbe, Sir H. (London)


Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Robertson, Sir D. (Caithness)
Wheatley, Major M J. (Poole)


Mackeson, Brig H. R.
Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool, S.)
White, J. Baker (Canterbury)


McKibbin, A.
Robson-Brown, W.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Rodgers, J. (Sevenoaks)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Roper, Sir H.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, E.)


Maclean, F. H. R.
Ropner, Col. L
Wills, G.


MacLeod, I. (Enfield, W.)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Wilson, G. (Truro)


MacLeod, J. (Ross and Cromarty)
Russell, R. S.
Winterlon, Rt. Hon. Earl


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D
Wood, Hon. R.


Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
York, C.


Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Savory, Prof. D. L.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Scott, Donald



Marples, A. E.
Shepherd, W. S. (Cheadle)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studholme.


Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Smith, E. M. (Grantham)



Second to Seventh Resolutions agreed to.

Eighth Resolution—Road Vehicles (Purchase Tax)— read a Second time.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes. 304 Noes, 299.

Division No.8]
AYES
[3.51 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Bowden, H. W.


Adams, Richard
Bartley, P.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)


Albu, A. H
Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Benson, G.
Brockway, A. Fenner


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Beswick, F.
Brook, D. (Halifax)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Bing, G. H. C.
Broughton, Dr. A D D


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Blackburn, A. R.
Brown, George (Belper)


Awbery, S. S.
Blenkinsop, A.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)


Ayles, W. H.
Blyton, W. R.
Burke, W. A.


Bacon, Miss A.
Boardman, H.
Burton, Miss E.


Baird, J.
Booth, A.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)


Balfour, A.
Bottomley, A. G.
Callaghan, James




Carmichael, James
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Orbach, M.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hobson, C. R.
Padley, W. E


Champion, A. J.
Holman, P.
Paget, R. T.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Paling, Rt. Hn. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)


Clunie, J.
Houghton, Douglas
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Cocks, F. S.
Hoy, J.
Pannell, T. C.


Coldrick, W.
Hubbard, T.
Pargiter, G. A.


Collick, P.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.)
Parker, J.


Cook, T. F.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Paton, J.


Cooper, G. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Peart, T. F.


Cooper, J. (Deptford)
Hughes, R. M. (Islington, N.)
Poole, Cecil


Corbel, Mrs. F. K. (Peckham)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Popplewell, E.


Cove, W. G.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Porter, G.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Price, M. Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Crawley, A.
 Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Proctor, W. T.


Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pursey, Comdr. H


Crosland, C. A. R.
Janner, B.
Rankin, J.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jay, D. P. T.
Rees, Mrs. D.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jeger, C. (Goole)
Reeves, J.


Daines, P.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jenkins, R. H.
Reid, W. (Camlachie)


Darling, G. (Hillsboro')
Johnson, J. (Rugby)
Rhodes, H.


Davies, Edward (Stoke, N.)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Robens, A


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Robinson, Kenneth (St Pancras. N.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, W. E. (Conway)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Keenan, W.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Deer, G.
Kenyon, C.
Royle, C.


Delargy, H. J.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Diamond, J.
King, H. M.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H


Dodds, N. N.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon E


Donnelly, D.
Kinley, J.
Shurmer, P. L. E


Donovan, T. N.
Lang, Rev. G.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lee, F. (Newton)
Silverman, S. S (Nelson)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. J. (W. Bromwich)
Leo Miss J. (Cannock)
Simmons, C J.


Dye, S.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Slater, J.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C
Lever, N. H. (Cheetham)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


 Edelman, M.
Lewis, A. W. J. (West Ham, N.)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Lewis, J. (Bolton, W.)
Snow, J. W.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lindgren, G. S.
Sorensen, R. W.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. N.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir F.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Logan, D. G.
Sparks, J. A.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Longden, F. (Smart Heath)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Ewart, R.
McAllister, G.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Fernyhough, E.
MacColl, J. E.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Field, Capt. W. J.
McGhee, H G.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Finch, H. J.
McGovern, J.
Stross, Dr. B.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McInnes, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith


FoMick, M
Mack, J. D.
Sylvester, G. O.


Foot, M. M.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Forman, J. C.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Reading, N.)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McLeavy, F.
Thomas, D. E (Aberdare)


Freeman, J. (Watford)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Thomas, I O. (Wrekin)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Thomas, I. R. (Rhondda, W.)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomas, T. George (Cardiff)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clavion)


Gibson, C. W.
 Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thurtle, Ernest


Gilzean, A
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Timmons, J.


Glanville, J E. (Conseil)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Gooch, E. G.
Manuel, A. C.
Tomney, F.


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A
Turner-Samuels, M


Greenwood, A W J. (Rossendale)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Usborne, Henry


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Mellish, R. J.
Vernon, Maj. W F.


Grenfell, D. R
Messer, F.
Viant, S. P.


Grey, C. F.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Wallace, H. W.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mikardo, Ian
Watkins, T E.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J (LlaneIly)
Mitchison, G. R.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M (Bradford, C.)


Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)
Moeran, E. W.
Weitzman, D.


Gunter, R. J.
Monslow, W.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Moody, A. S.
Wells, W. T (Walsall)


Hale, J. (Rochdale)
Morgan, Dr. H. B
West, D. G.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Morley, R.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
White, Mrs. E (E Flint)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N E.)


Hamilton, W. W.
Mort, D. L.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon.


Hannan, W
Moyle, A.
Wigg, George


Hardman, D R
MuIley, F. W.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Hardy, E. A
Murray, J. D.
Wilkes, L.


Hargreaves, A
Nally, W.
Wilkins, W. A.


Harrison, J.
Neal, H.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Hayman, F. H.
O'Brien, T.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Titgen)
Oldfield, W. H
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Herbison, Miss M.
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)







Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Wise, Major F. J.
Yates, V. F.


Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Huyton)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)
Woods, Rev. G. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)
Wyatt, W. L.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Collindridge.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Eccles, D. M.
Lindsay, Martin


Alport, C. J. M.
Eden, Fn. Hon. A.
Linstead, H. N.


Amery, J. (Preston, N.)
Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Llewellyn, D.


Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Erroll, F. J.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)


Arbuthnot, J. S.
Fisher, N. T. L.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)


Astor, Hon. M.
Fort, R.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Baker, P.
Foster, J. G.
Longden, G. J. M. (Herts. S.W.)


Baldock, J. M
Fraser, Hon. H. C. P. (Stone)
Low, A. R. W.


Baldwin, A. E.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Lucas, Major Sir J. (Portsmouth, S.)


Banks, Col. C.
Fyte, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Lucas. P B. (Brenttord)


Baxter, A. B.
Gage, C. H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Lytteiton, Rt. Hon. O.


Bell, R. M. (S. Buckinghamshire)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
McAdden, S. J.


Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston)
Gammans, L. D.
McCallum, Maj. D.


Bennett, R. F. B. (Gosport)
Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hen. M. S.


Bennett, W. G. (Woodside)
Gates, Maj E. E.
Macdonald, A. J. F. (Roxburgh)


Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)
George, Lady M Lloyd
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)


Birch, Nigel
Glyn, Sir R
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Bishop, F. P.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
McKibbin, A.


Black, C. W.
Granville, E (Eye)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Walls)
Gridley, Sir A
Maclay, Hon. J. S.


Boothby, R.
Grimond, J.
Maclean, F. H. R.


Bossom, A. C
Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)
MacLeod, I. (Enfield, W.)


Bowen, R.
Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)
MacLeod, J. (Ross and Cromarty)


Bower, N.
Harden, J. R. E.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Manningham-Buffer, R. E.


Braine, B.
Harris, R. R. (Heston)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Harvey, Air-Codre. A. V. (Mavvledfield)
Marples, A. E.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Harvey, I. (Harrow, E.)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Brooke, H. (Hampstead)
Hay, John
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)


Browne, J. N. (Govan)
Head, Brig. A. H
Maude, A. E. U. (Ealing, S.)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt Hon. Sir C.
Maude, J. C. (Exeter)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Heald, L. F.
Maudling, R.


Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E.
Heath, Colonel E. C. R.
Medlicott, Brigadier F.


Burden, Squadron-Leader F. A.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mellor, Sir J.


Butcher, H. W.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Molson, A. H. E.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'Id'n)
Higgs, J. M. C.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.


Carr, L. R. (Mitcham)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Morris, R. Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Carson, Hon. E.
Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)


Channon, H.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Hirst, G. A. N
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Clarke, Col. R. S. (East Grinstead)
Hollis, M. C.
Nabarro, G


Clarke, Brig. T. H. (Portsmouth, W.)
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Nicholls, H.


Clyde, J. L.
Hope, Lord J.
Nicholson, G.


Colegate, A.
Hopkinson, H
Nield, B. (Chester)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss P
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Cooper, A. E. (Ilford, S.)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Nugent, G. R. H.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Howard, G. R. (SI. Ives)
Nutting, Anthony


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Howard, S. G. (Cambridgeshire)
Oakshott, H. D.


Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)
Hudson, Sir A. U M. (Lewisham, N.)
Odey, G. W.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
O'Neill, Rt Hon. Sir H.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Crass, Rt. Hon. Sir R.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hurd, A. R
Orr-Ewing, Charles I. (Hendon, N.)


Crouch, R. F.
Hutchinson, G. (Ilford, N.)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)


Crowder, F. P. (Ruislip, N'thwood)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Osborne, C.


Crowder, Capt. John F. E. (F.chley)
Hyde, H. M.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O


Cundilff, F. W.
Hylton-Foster, H. B.
Perkins, W R. D.


Cuthbert, W. N
Jeffreys, General Sir G
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Darling, Sir W. Y. (Edinburgh, S.)
Jennings, R.
Pickthorn, K


Davidson, Viscountess
Johnson, H. S (Kemptown)
Pitman, I. J


Davies, Rt. 'Hn. Clement (M'tgomery)
Jones, A (Hall Green)
Powell, J. Enoch


Davies, Nigel (Epping)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon L W
Prescott, Stanley


de Chair, S.
Kaberry, D.
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


De la Bère, R.
Keeling, E. H.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O


Deedes, W. F.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Protumo, J. D


Digby, S. Wingfield
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col W H.
Raikes, H. V.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lambert, Hon. G
Rayner, Brig. R


Donner, P. W.
Lancaster, Col. C G
Redmayne, M


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M
Langford-Holt, J
Remnant, Hon. P


Drayson, G. B.
Law, Rt, Hon. R K
Renton, D. L. M.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Leather, E. H. C
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E A. H
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Dunglass, Lord
Lennox-Boyd, A. T
Roberts. P G (Heeley)


Duthie, W. S.









Robertson, Sir D. (Caithness)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. R. (N.Fyide)
Vosper, D. F


Robinson, J Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Stevens, G. P
Wade, D. W.


Robson-Brown, W.
Steward, W.A. (Woolwich, W.)
Wakefield, E. B. (Derbyshire, W.)


Rodgers, J. (Sevenoaks)
Stewart, j Henderson (Fife, E.)
Walker-Smith, D.C.


Roper, Sir H.
Storey, S.
Ward, Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Ropner, Col. L.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Waterhouse, Capt. C


Russell, R. S.
Summers, G. S.
Watkinson, H.


Ryder, Capt. R. E. D
Suteliffe, H.
Watt, Sir. G.S. Harvie


Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Taylor, C.S (Eastbourne)
Webbe, Sir H. (London)


Savory, Prof. D. L.
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Wheatley, Major M.J. (Poole)


Scott, Donald
Teeling, William
White, J. Baker (Canterbury)


Shepherd, W S. (Cheadle)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Thompson, K.P. (Walton)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Smith, E M (Grantham)
Thompson, R. H.M. (Croydon, W.)
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, E.)


Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Thorneyeroft, G. E. P. (Moanmouth)
Wills, G.


Smithers, Sir W. (Orpington)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Wilson, G. (Truro)


Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Snadden, W. McN.
Tilney, J. D.
Wood, Hon. R.


Soames, Capt. C.
Touche, G. C.
York, C.


Spearman, A. C. M.
Turton, R. H.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Tweedsmuir, Lady



Spans, Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Vane, W.M. F.
TELLER FOR THE NOES:


Stanley, Rt Hon. 0. (Bristol, W.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J.K
Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studholme


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
 That it is expedient to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the sum of four hundred and ninety million pounds for the permanent annual charge for the National Debt for the current financial year, instead of the sum of three hundred and fifty-five million pounds.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

[24th April]

Resolution reported:
 That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue, and to make further provision in connection with finance, so, however, that this Resolution shall not extend to the making of amendments of the law relating to purchase tax except amendments, if any, reducing the first, second, or third rate of the tax generally for all goods to which the rate applies.

Resolution read a Second time.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution and upon the other Resolutions reported from the Committee of Ways and Means and the Resolution reported from the Committee on Finance [Money], and agreed to this day, by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Gaitskell and Mr. Douglas Jay.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL

" to grant certain duties and alter other duties, to make certain amendments of the law relating to purchase tax, to amend the law relating to other branches of the public revenue or to the National Debt, and to make further provision in connection with Finance,"

Presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 17.]

Orders of the Day — DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session (hereinafter referred to as 'the new Act') to make further provision for the acquisition of land, creation of easements and carrying out of work in development areas; to authorise the Board of Trade to make grants in connection with the establishment in or transfer to development areas of industrial undertakings, and to make grants or loans to housing associations; and to extend the provisions of section five of the Employment and Training Act. 1948, it is expedient to authorise
(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, being an increase attributable to expenditure by the Board of Trade under the new Act in—

(i) the acquisition of land,
(ii) the creation of easements,
(iii) the carrying out of work,
(iv) the making of grants in connection with the establishment in or transfer to development areas of industrial undertakings, and
(v) the making of grants or loans to housing associations;

(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any increase in the moneys so payable under the said Act of 1945, being an increase attributable to the provisions of the new Act;
(c) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the new Act in the sums payable out of such moneys under the Employment and Training Act, 1948.

Orders of the Day — DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY BILL

Considered in Committee. [Major MILNER in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(ACQUISITION OF LAND AND CREATION OF EASEMENTS.)

4.8 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, to leave out "Board," and to insert:
Lands Tribunal established under the Lands Tribunal Act, 1949.
I am glad that we have now reached calmer waters. During the Second Reading of this Bill I said we should not trouble the Government very far except in matters of detail, but I am not sure that

that was a correct statement on my part, because I think a very considerable principle is involved in this Amendment.

The Chairman: Before the right hon. Gentleman continues, I suggest that it would, perhaps, be for the general convenience, if this Amendment were discussed with the following Amendment: In page 2, line 11, leave out "to the Board reasonable," and insert "reasonable to the said Tribunal."

Mr. Lyttelton: That is entirely agreeable to us. Major Milner. I was, in fact, addressing my remarks to both Amendments.
The powers under the Clause, as it exists, especially subsection (1, a and b), make the Board of Trade sole judge of the criteria. I think there is a great tendency—and I have frequently had occasion to draw attention to it in Committee on Bills such as this—in modern legislation to give Departments far wider powers than are necessary for the purpose of a particular Measure, and to draft Bills so as to protect at all costs Departments from any administrative mistakes. We want to see—there is no party difference about this Bill—the minimum powers necessary to fulfil the objects of the Bill conferred on the Government, but not more.
I do suggest that it is the duty of this Committee to see that not more than the necessary powers are given. After all, all legislation limits the liberty of the subject in some respects or limits the liberty of some subjects; and if we have any primary duty in this Committee it is surely to see that those limits are protected. The tendency to which I have referred is very marked in this Clause. I think it wrong that the requisitioning authority—if that is the right phrase—should be judge, jury, advocate, and court of appeal in its own suit.
We wish to put in substitution for the word "Board" the words "Lands Tribunal established under the Lands Tribunal Act, 1949." It seems to us that that would be a convenient body, and if our Amendment were accepted it would substitute an independent authority for the Board of Trade. I do not think that cases are likely to be frequent, but where they do occur, and due notice has been given under the Acquisition of Land


(Authorisation Procedure) Act, then the citizen whose property is to be requisitioned or bought will have the satisfaction of an appeal to an independent tribunal.
Quite frankly we are not indissolubly wedded to the suggestion of using the Lands Tribunal. We are anxious to establish a principle, and we should not press the Amendment to a Division if we could get some assurance from the Government that they accept the principle we have in mind, which we think would mean an improvement of the Bill. There are two other ways of achieving it which suggest themselves at once to hon. Members on this side of the Committee. One would be to allow the ordinary processes of law to operate—which does not happen under the Clause as now drafted—by which the citizen who thought himself aggrieved could move for an injunction to prevent the happening of what he thought unjust. Or, alternatively, the Government could set up an ad hoc body to consider this sort of appeal.
I do not wish to be dogmatic about which of these three methods would be the best. The simplest form in which we could put our Amendment was to suggest the Lands Tribunal set up in 1949. At the same time, we do not necessarily say that that is the best way of securing the object which we have in mind. We hope very much that the Government will share that tenderness which we feel for the rights of the citizen, and I hope the Committee will regard this as one of its primary duties, and will see that the liberties of the subject are not curtailed more than is absolutely necessary within the limits of this Bill. The objects of the Bill are not the subject of party controversy. They have the support of Members in every part of the Committee. We do think, however, that it is wrong that the primary authority in this case should also be the only one which has to be satisfied about the conditions contained in subsection (1, a and b).

4.15 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I am quite prepared, I think, to indicate the agreement of the Government to the general principle the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. I am quite sure that he has sufficient confidence in the Board of Trade to know

that those powers would never have been misused. He has raised this matter as a point of principle; and I am sure that, apart from that, he would feel that there would have been no danger that the Board of Trade would be likely to have taken over factories which were being to some extent worked for industrial processes; and I think he can feel that the Board of Trade would have been unlikely to be harsh in a case where there was some evidence produced that the premises were going to be used for industrial purposes within a reasonably short lime. I am quite prepared to recommend the Committee to agree with the general principle that there should be some right of appeal, and that we, no less than the owner of the premises, should have the duty and the right to satisfy an independent body or judicial body that what we propose is right.
The only point where I do not think I agree with the right hon. Gentleman is this. He indicated that his mind was not rigid on the point. It is the question of matters being left to the Lands Tribunal. In the view of the Government the Lands Tribunal would not be the best body for dealing with this, because it is set up principally for dealing with valuation matters; and this is not principally, of course, a valuation matter. However, we do agree with the suggestion that there should be an independent body, and I am quite sure that the Committee could not do better than leave this matter to the courts to decide.
Therefore, we would be quite prepared to consider, between now and a later stage in the proceedings, working out a formula, and discussing it with the right hon. Gentleman if he so desired, which would enable the courts that have already power to deal with other questions under the Acquisition of Land Act to deal with this one. If the right hon. Gentleman would be agreeable to withdraw his Amendment, or not to press it, I should be prepared certainly to give him the assurance that we should be willing to put forward an Amendment which would have the effect of giving the courts jurisdiction to deal with these cases.

Mr. Manningham-Buller (Northants, South): I am sure the Committee welcomes the announcement that the right hon. Gentleman has just made. However, there is a question I should like


to ask him. When he says he will consider the matter at a "later stage in the proceedings" does he mean a later stage in the discussion of this Bill in the House of Commons?

Mr. Wilson: Yes.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I do not want to criticise what he said because we welcome it, but I think that recourse to the courts will necessitate, obviously, considerable redrafting, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of his acceptance of the principle here, whether it should not be accepted and applied in all other cases where similar considerations apply.

Mr. Wilson: I am not sure whether the hon. and learned Gentleman means that I should apply this principle to other cases outside this Bill. He will realise that that is not possible. My intention was that a change in the Bill should be made at a later stage in the proceedings in the House of Commons.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to meet the suggestion and the principle contained in our Amendment in the manner he has suggested. There are only two points I should like to put to him. I am inclined to agree, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) has just done, that the court he has in mind may be the more appropriate to the purpose contemplated, but I hope that the form of the Amendment which he has in mind will put on the Board of Trade the onus of proving, where objection is taken, their right to compulsory acquisition. As the thing stands at present the proviso that starts at line 12 on page 1—the proviso limiting the power of the Board of Trade —is wholly meaningless, because the Board of Trade can avoid entirely the restriction put upon them because of the defects to which my right hon. Friend drew attention. I think the form that is adopted should be a form that puts on the Board of Trade the onus of proving, in cases where objection is taken, that they are entitled to proceed with the compulsory acquisition.
The other matter that I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman—it may be that his introductory remarks were of

a playful nature—is that, while it is, of course, no part of the contention of anybody here that the Board of Trade, under whoever is in charge, have any intention of doing what is wrong, that is not what we have to consider when legislation comes before this Committee. The mere assertion that a Government Department will not abuse greatly excessive powers which could be abused is not a ground for looking upon these things uncritically. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman differs from me in that, and I only hope that when he comes to meet our purposes in the way he has described he will see that the onus in a disputed case is placed upon the Board of Trade.

Mr, Derek Walker-Smith: The Committee will have heard with considerable gratification the speech of the President of the Board of Trade this afternoon in answer to this Amendment, which raises principles of very considerable constitutional importance. It raises the principle of how far a Government Department should be allowed to be an exception to the old constitutional doctrine that no man shall be judge in his own cause. Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), I venture to hope that by his concession this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman has established a precedent which may be of considerable value in the future constitutional development of this country, because, as is well known to the Committee, this is far from being a unique occasion. There are a number of powers of compulsory acquisition in which the acquiring authority is also the confirming authority, and is therefore judge in its own cause.
I think that that is relevant when one comes to look at what sort of an appeal tribunal should be set up under this Clause. I quite agree that the Lands Tribunal would be an unsuitable tribunal for the hearing of these appeals. The Lands Tribunal is, of course, the successor in title to the old official arbitrators; it is concerned solely with the question of valuation, and was constituted to take care of appeals on questions of this sort. At the same time, I venture to wonder whether the appeal to the courts will be quite as simple as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. He says that there is also provision under the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act for appeal


to the courts. If my recollection is right, under that Act a question can only go to the courts on a case stated, on a point of law, whereas this is a clear appeal on a point of fact.
I am the last person to wish to oust the jurisdiction of the courts, but I should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider, having in mind the possibility that he is helping to create a precedent which may be of considerable value much beyond the limited bounds of this Bill, whether it is not possible to refer these appeals to some form of appeal tribunal to which ultimately could be given the jurisdiction of bearing appeals in other cases where Ministers acquire land and are themselves the confirming authority. If that can be done, it will very greatly assist to get away from the anomalous position which now exists under the large number of statutes where Ministers are empowered compulsorily to acquire land. It is, therefore, a question of principle of the first order and of a wider ramification than merely in this Clause, and I hope that the Minister will have those wider aspects in mind when he finally considers the form in which he puts down his own Amendment.

Mr. Lyttehon: I am quite satisfied with what the President of the Board of Trade has said. Though I realise that it has application to other matters, I want to confine myself strictly to thanking him for this concession upon this Bill, and to saying that we are gratified to have received that concession. I hope that the form of words in which it is to be couched will not be too difficult to accept. On that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Captain Duncan: On a point of Order. I have risen to speak on more than one occasion, and I should like to make this one point. Unless the right hon. Gentleman moves the proposed Amendment in page 2, line 22, to leave out "each of the said Acts" and to insert "the said Act of 1946," there will be no Report stage, in which case there would be no opportunity for dealing with this matter in this House. If I can have the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that that Amendment will be moved—and I hope then carried—there will then be a Report stage, and my point does not arise.
Perhaps I might make just one further point. In referring the matter to the courts—a concession for which I am grateful—I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that, except in one subsection, there is at present no reference in the Bill to Scotland, and that in referring the matter to the courts, there will have to be special reference to the Scottish courts.

The Chairman: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is going rather beyond his original point, which I thought was a point of Order.

Captain Duncan: I was objecting to the withdrawal of the Amendment without an assurance that there would be a Report stage.

Mr. H. Wilson: It is not, of course, in my power to say whether there will be a Report stage. The only assurance I can give the hon. and gallant Gentleman is that I hope to move the Amendment to which he referred, and I hope the Committee will accept it. If that is done there will be a Report stage, but I cannot go further than that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, at the end, to insert:
 Provided also that the Board of Trade shall not by virtue of this section or of the principal Act acquire compulsorily any land adjoining or adjacent to an industrial building in any case where on an objection made as aforesaid it is shown to the satisfaction of the said Tribunal that such land is reasonably required or likely to be required in connection with the use or extension of that building, being a building occupied as aforesaid.
This Amendment raises a different point, and is put down with a view to considering whether the two exceptions set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) are sufficient, or whether they ought not to be extended by the addition of the proviso suggested in the Amendment. There might arise the case where the Board of Trade were seeking to acquire an open piece of land for the purpose of building on it a factory, or some extension of one of their factories, when that piece of land had been acquired by another factory, which was in occupation and carrying on production, with a view, as that factory developed, to extending the factory upon that open land.
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that, when new factories are established, it is quite common for more ground to be purchased than is at that moment required, with a view to possible expansion. All we seek to provide for in this Amendment is that where an existing factory has acquired land adjoining it with a view to expansion and building on it in the future, then that land ought not to be taken away compulsorily by the Board of Trade. This Amendment seeks to ensure that that could not happen. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be in agreement, in principle, that that ought not to happen, and it will make it safer if we put something of this kind into the Bill to act as a signpost to those concerned on both sides.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Wilson: I am sure that the whole Committee is agreed that it would be extremely foolish and unprofitable to contemplate taking over idle land which had been bought with a view to development or extension either in the near future or perhaps in the long-term future by the company owning the land which is adjacent to it. I think that if he asked his right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), who, I believe. has rather more intimate knowledge of the way in which the whole development area legislation has been worked out, his right hon. Friend could tell him that in all cases in the development areas the Board of Trade and the industrial estate companies have been most scrupulous about preserving a sufficient amount of land for development by the firms established there, and in many cases have pressed firms to see that land was available or might be available for them.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I was not suggesting the contrary.

Mr. Wilson: I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not suggesting the contrary, but he was, I understand, wanting to add certainty to the point to make quite sure that we could not slip up in any case.
As the hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware, the point raised is one which goes much wider than this Bill. It is a point which has been raised before in connection with other compulsory acquisition orders. He will be aware that if the owner of the land in question, as in the

example given by the hon. and learned Gentleman, is in fact the owner of the factory next door, and may at some stage wish to extend, he is fully entitled to raise objection to the making of an order and to be heard at any public inquiry which relates to the making of the order.
I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman—he gave only one example —had in mind the question of land which might be next door to a factory but which was owned by a third party. Even if one contemplates this more extreme example of the third party owning the land, there is still nothing to prevent such a landowner from raising objections to the making of a compulsory purchase order, and certainly he can be heard at any public inquiry. He, too, if he lost, would be entitled to compensation in respect of the loss of any interest in this land or damage to it, provided it was a case of compulsory purchase.
The hon. and learned Gentleman will realise also, of course, that the Amendment which he has moved relates to the acquisition of land on which there are factory premises, and that rather weakens the force of his argument, but quite apart from that, I am sure he will agree that his point, which is a sound one in terms of economic practice, is fully covered by existing legislation, and there is provision for the owner of that land to have his case heard at a public inquiry.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman has done justice to the strength of the argument of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. ManninghamBuller). He says that there is no need for this Amendment because any person affected by the proposed acquisition could object under the procedure of the 1946 Act. In that case, there is no need for the proviso in the subsection as it stands, because equally the owner of the factory which it was proposed to acquire could use the procedure of objection under the 1946 Act.
Our point is that there is a proviso in this subsection which covers the industrial building in use and its prospects, whereas there is no corresponding proviso which covers the question of land adjacent to the industrial building. In the subsection the right is given to acquire


land, including the industrial building which may comprise land well outside the curtilage of that building, whereas the proviso in the subsection relates only to the industrial building itself, and it seems to me that there is real force in the contention that a similar proviso, covering the land as opposed to the building, should cover the prospects of industrial expansion of land adjacent to it.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I should like to reinforce what has been said by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I think that the right hon. Gentleman is a little optimistic in expecting the Committee to accept the argument that there is no difference between a proviso in an Act and merely having the same set of facts to present at a public local inquiry for the consideration of the Board of Trade.
The Committee will appreciate that if this proviso is not inserted in the subsection, anybody appearing at the public local inquiry can argue on the merits of such a situation that an order should not be confirmed, but if it were confirmed they would, of course, have no remedy which would enable them to upset the decision of the President of the Board of Trade. If, on the other hand, a proviso were inserted and the President of the Board of Trade then insisted on confirming the order, the order could nevertheless, be quashed as being an order which could not properly be made under the Act. If the principle as put forward by my hon. and learned Friend is right, which I think it is, it is clear in my view that it ought to be in the Act and not left merely as a matter of argument and representation at the public local inquiry, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say, as this Clause is to be reconsidered before the Report stage, that he will have a further look at this point. I put the arguments rather shortly, but I must say that I regard his reply as most unsatisfactory, because he did not deal with the substantial points in support of this Amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South - West (Mr. Powell) pointed out, this is only carrying paragraphs (a) and (b) a little further

by adding to the building referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) the land adjacent thereto.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, when he reconsiders the matter, will see that the reassurance that he hopes to give us by pointing to the right of appearing at a public inquiry really does not go far enough to meet the case, which is a valid case and one which, in our opinion, should be met. I do not want to take up more time now by arguing these points, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say that he will give that assurance.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): I think I may say that my right hon. Friend did appreciate quite distinctly the difference between the result of the proviso and the result of an objection. Certainly, the proviso applies only in the case where an industrial building is sought to be acquired, and it does not apply in the case where land adjacent to the building is sought to be acquired. I think that my right hon. Friend made that clear in his answer to the arguments in support of the Amendment.
The question which has to be taken into account on the Amendment is that this problem of adjacent land, that is to say, land which is adjacent to a building used for an industrial, commercial or profitable purpose, is not one which arises on this Bill alone. It arises in regard to every conceivable piece of legislation which deals with the compulsory acquisition of land. In the case of a housing authority which wants to acquire land for the purpose of housing, exactly the same Amendment could be moved to any of the powers vested in the housing authority compulsorily to acquire land. Therefore, we feel that there is no case for differentiating this type of compulsory acquisition from other types.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Clearly there was a provision which prevented private gardens and such like from being compulsorily acquired.

The Solicitor-General: Certainly gardens; but the Amendment here is a far wider one. It is an Amendment drawn in general terms to include land which may at some time or other, reasonably I agree, be required for the purpose of an extension. Suppose that a factory owner erects a factory, acquiring land


for that purpose in excess of his immediate requirements; it is practically impossible in many cases, if not in most cases, to say whether he will want at some time or other to extend his enterprise to that adjacent land. This is far wider than any qualification, as far as I am aware, to any other power to acquire land compulsorily. If this is a problem, then it arises in relation to all compulsory acquisitioning of land.
Therefore, we feel that a special case cannot be made in regard to this Bill. If it is a problem which gives rise to real difficulties—and as far as we know it has not done so—it will have to be considered as a matter of general principle. Meanwhile, my right hon. Friend feels that the situation is as satisfactory as it can be under the Bill in its present form. Where industrial buildings are being acquired, the proviso prevents the Board of Trade from acquiring them under certain circumstances. The position is that the owner, or the person claiming an interest, is left to raise his objections at a public hearing or inquiry instituted under the proceedings of the Acquisition of Land Act. Experience has not shown any reason to depart from that system we are seeking to embody in the Bill.
I hope it will be agreed that that is as far as we can be reasonably expected to go in connection with this Bill. If the question has to be considered as a general matter of principle on some future occasion, it will no doubt be considered, but my right hon. Friend feels he cannot give an undertaking in this case to make an exception on the very general lines indicated by this Amendment.

Mr. Erroll: The Solicitor-General has made a cogent and lucid argument in favour of rejecting this Amendment. I suppose it would be inappropriate to congratulate him on his first speech made as a refugee Member for a new division. It is, nevertheless, nice to have the benefit of his explanations. Surely he is placing the argument the wrong way round in this case. He is making the case that in the body of the law we have a general system of compulsory acquisition and that this Amendment would constitute an exception to that principle. The point is that this Bill extends the general principle of compulsory acquisition. It authorises

compulsory acquisition for very novel and special reasons, namely, the non-utilisation of factory premises and industrial land in development areas.
Our Amendment merely seeks to restrain the exceptional use of compulsory powers to within limits which we believe to be right. It is very important that these exceptional powers of compulsory acquisition should not be used, for example, in a trading estate which has become congested, where an owner may be covetously desiring some land held by an adjacent owner for future development. We feel it is important that this Amendment should be written into the Bill so that the general principle of compulsory acquisition of land is not further complicated by the even wider extension proposed in the Bill in its present form.

Amendment negatived.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Lyttelton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, at the end, to insert:
 Provided also that this section shall not apply to any land which in any development plan approved or made under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and in force for the time being is allocated for use for any purpose or purposes other than industrial purposes.
I think that the addition of these words will improve the Bill. The Amendment is designed for the simple purpose of preventing what are known as jurisdictional disputes between the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. This is not a fanciful Amendment, because it is known that these troubles have occurred between the British Transport Commission and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning.

The Solicitor-General: While I can appreciate the object behind this Amendment, which is obviously designed to improve the Bill, I think the case put forward is proceeding under a slight misconception. We think that the Amendment is not really necessary. The position is that the local planning authority makes its plan which provides for the zoning of particular parts of the area for particular purposes. Suppose that an undertaking acquires a factory from the Board of Trade which the Board of Trade have acquired under Clause 1 of the Bill. The undertaker is still subject to the pro


visions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. It follows that the Board of Trade would not be so foolish as to acquire a factory and proceed to use it for industrial purposes in an area zoned for residential purposes.
Suppose that the Board of Trade acquired the building and then proceeded to let it to an undertaker who wanted to use it for industrial purposes; all that would happen would be that the local planning authority, under the terms of the 1947 Act, would say to the undertaker, "We are sorry, but you can use it only for the specific purposes within the four walls of the plan, unless the planning authority decides to make an exception." Therefore, no undertaker would dream of acquiring a factory from the Board of Trade in a zoned area for the purpose of using it contrary to the terms of the plan made by the planning authority. It would be nonsensical to do so. Equally, the Board of Trade would not be so foolish as to acquire a factory in an area zoned for residential purposes and try to sell it to an undertaker who would not dream of taking it if he had to comply with the provisions of the development scheme of the planning authority.
Therefore, I do not think it is necessary to have these additional words. Indeed, their presence would introduce some confusion in a picture which ought to be reasonably clear, namely, the picture that any undertaker proceeding to acquire a factory from the Board of Trade must acquire it knowing that he has to comply with the planning authority scheme and can use it only consistently with the provisions of that scheme. It stands to reason that the Board of Trade will not try to palm off a factory to an undertaker in circumstances in which he would have to close it down, and that the undertaker would not try to acquire a factory from the Board of Trade in such circumstances. I think that the position is satisfactory, because the person acquiring a factory from the Board of Trade knows that be comes under the terms of the planning authority's scheme.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has given a very clear explanation of the position on the assumption that the Town and Country Planning Act will be of greater

legal effect than the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945. What I am wondering is whether he is quite right in that, because express power of compulsory purchase is given by the 1945 Act, which would be retained, after slight amendment, by this Bill, for the provision of premises for meeting requirements of industrial undertakings.
If the Board of Trade exercised that power, it would be possible to argue that Parliament had given the Board of Trade power to acquire a particular building for the purpose of carrying on an industry in that building. The person to whom they had let the building would come under the cloak or protection of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, and, therefore, could say, notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act "I am entitled to carry on this industry, because the Board of Trade are entitled to acquire the premises compulsorily to enable this business to be carried on."
While I would agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument on the assumption that the Town and Country Planning Act, where it might be in conflict with the Distribution of Industry Act, would override that Act, I am not at all clear that that is certain to be the case, and that is the point on which I should like to have further information. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not absolutely satisfied about that, then I suggest that this needs looking into a little further. I know that my right hon. Friend, in moving this Amendment, did so with a view to exploring the position.

The Solicitor-General: I had considered the particular argument which the hon. and learned Gentleman has just advanced, and having considered it, I thought that I was right in saying what I did. In view of the doubt which he feels I will look into it again, but it was considered carefully and we formed a clear view as to what was the result of the legislation.

Mr. Walker-Smith: With great respect to the Solicitor-General, I am not sure the argument is quite as simple—I am referring to his previous speech sas he made it appear. He took the case that there would not be compulsory acquisition or the setting up of industrial undertakings within an area zoned as residential under a development plan under the


Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. It may be that there are within a residential zone that is zoned under a development plan under the 1947 Act certain industrial uses which are authorised or permitted on the appointed day, albeit non-conforming uses.
One of two things may happen according to whether or not the factory use is an authorised nse or a non-conforming use in the residential area for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. If it is not an authorised use, it is possible to serve an enforcement notice under Section 23 of the 1947 Act. If, on the other hand, it is an authorised use albeit a non-conforming use, then the only remedy is to serve a discontinuance order involving compensation under Section 26 of the 1947 Act.
May it not be that it will take longer to get rid of industrial uses and nonconforming uses in residential zoned areas if the Board of Trade have the power to be interested in them because of the delay it may involve in the serving of either an enforcement notice or a discontinuance notice to get rid of the nonconforming use? Surely, that is the danger which arises, and which is not at all disposed of by the fact that there will be residential zoning under the 1947 Act.

Mr. Lyttelton: I quite accept what the Solicitor-General has said. He has assured us that he will look into the matter, and in those circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. H. Wilson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, to leave out "each of the said Acts" and to insert "the said Act of 1946."
This is a drafting Amendment and I apologise to the Committee for the fact that they have been troubled with it. When the Bill was being drafted, reference was made to "the said Acts" because at that time we were also referring to the corresponding Scottish Act. Since that time, however, there have been other changes, and it is now necessary here to refer only to one Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. John Hay: I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, at the end, to insert:

 and the Board shall in respect of such compulsory purchase pay and discharge the proper scale costs of any solicitor acting for and: engaged by the vendor of any land so. acquired for the purposes of the principal Act or this Act.
This Amendment is one which I hope will commend itself to the Government, since to my mind it carries out an act of nothing more nor less than justice to the people who will be required to surrender their property under the provisions of the principal Act and also under this Bill. I must declare my interest in the matter at this early stage. I am a practising solicitor, but I hasten to assure the Committee that so far asI and my professional brethren are concerned, we do not benefit at all from this particular provision.
As the Committee will see, the Amendment is intended to provide that on acquisition of land, the Board of Trade shall, in respect of compulsory purchase, pay the vendor's full scale costs. As I understand it, the position at present is that in acquisition of this kind under the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation. Procedure) Act, 1946, by reason of the incorporation in that Act of a Section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act,. 1845, the normal solicitor's charges for the vendor's property acquired—

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: On a point of Order. Will this Amendment involve an additional charge, and if so will it be in order to discuss it?

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Charles. MacAndrew): Yes, because the Money Resolution authorises expenditure on the acquisition of land.

Mr. Hay: The position at present is that when any public body goes to acquire land compulsorily under similar circumstances to those effected by this Bill, the customary scale charge which the vendor of the property is charged by his solicitors does not always apply. As Members of the Committee will know, between a willing purchaser and a willing vendor there is a consideration fixed, and that consideration has direct relation to the amount of the solicitor's charges.
The purpose of my Amendment therefore, is to make it clear that in relation to the sort of acquisition we have here, it shall be the rule that the Board of Trade, when they acquire it, shall pay the full scale vendor's costs. The only


person who is going to benefit here is the vendor, because in any event he would be obliged to pay the same costs. He is merely getting reimbursement from the Board of Trade for his costs.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I support the principle of this Amendment very wholeheartedly indeed, and like my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) I must declare my indirect interest in the matter, because I am a solicitor. It is indirect, because we cannot benefit by this proposal, inasmuch as we can always get the costs out of our clients or we hope to get them.
If the Solicitor-General, who I hope will reply, resists our Amendment on the ground that the drafting will not achieve the result which we have in mind, I shall not rebut that argument. We wish to establish the principle of the thing. I doubt very much whether even the Solicitor-General, let alone the Committee, appreciates the incredible chaos there is in our stautory procedure and throughout the legislation with regard to the payment of solicitors' charges in all forms of compulsory purchase and acquisition of land. It is high time that the Government looked to the matter and arrived at the simple solution which all solicitors desire and which I believe all local authorities, all Government Departments, and all persons responsible for compulsory acquisition, would also like to see arrived at.
That principle is simply that the vendor's solicitor shall be entitled to be paid by the body which is compulsorily acquiring the land the same costs as he would be entitled to from his own client in the event of a private deal. Surely that is simple enough. The situation has become exceedingly complicated as the years have gone by. I am glad that I took the opportunity of writing to the Attorney-General that we intended to raise the point. I hope that he has passed the message on to the Solicitor-General. I should like to warn the Solicitor-General that should this Government introduce any other Bill for compulsory acquisition of land and fail to provide satisfactory provisions for the payment of a vendor's solicitors, I shall raise the matter again. Should any other Government introduce such a Bill while I am a Member of this House I shall still raise the matter.
I have no doubt that the answer which we shall get from the Solicitor-General will be that as this Amendment merely repeats provisions which are in the principal Act, he is not prepared to introduce it into the Bill. If he puts forward that argument I would point out that the whole purpose of the Bill is to amend the principal Act, and that therefore he can perfectly well, if he accepts the principle of our Amendment, introduce an Amendment himself which will put right the error which has crept into this Bill as a result of the error in the principal Act. I hope that he will do so.
If I may do so without wearying the Committee, I should like to amplify briefly, by way of illustrating the mess we are in, the serious point which my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment has made. There are some 15 varieties of compulsory purchase, carrying a variety of methods of remuneration of the vendor's solicitor. The Committee should appreciate that the whole matter springs from the Section which, by reference, is incorporated into the Bill, namely Section 82 of the Land Clauses (Consolidation) Act, 1842. We are really dealing with ancient history.
The Government, in going back some 108 years for their precedent, are very reactionary indeed. They might well have brought the matter a little more up to date. If there is compulsory acquisition of registered land, the situation is all right. The vendor's solicitors are entitled to be paid by the acquiring body as they would be entitled in a private deal. It is where we are dealing with unregistered land that the majority of the cases of compulsory acquisition arise and where the whole thing gets into a most complicated state.
I will not burden the Committee with a mass of detail, but I should like to make reference to one aspect of the matter which illustrates the chaos of the situation. In cases in which land is compulsorily acquired by local authorities there is great doubt about the law. The opinions of two separate legal advisers have been taken in order to try to elucidate it. I feel sure that the Committee will not be surprised to learn that the opinions of those two eminent Gentlemen were diametrically opposed. In one case the opinion was to the effect that a local authority was entitled to come to


an agreement with the vendor that the local authority would bear the full-scale charges of the vendor. In view of that opinion some local authorities have accepted the principle and pay the full-scale charges. Other authorities follow the contrary opinion that it is not legally right for them to enter into such an agreement and that they do so at the peril of being surcharged with the money that they pay out in that way. Consequently they do not take the risk. They pay the lower scale charges only.
There is a further subsidiary point which is introduced into the Measure, that even on the lower scale charges, the authority do not pay all the vendor's solicitors' charges but only costs from the time of the preparation of the abstract of title. There is no reason why they should not pay the earlier costs. There is a third line of local authorities who say, "One legal authority says we should pay the full scale, and the other legal authority says that we should pay the smaller scale. We will compromise. If we think it is right and fair we will pay one scale or the other, but we will make our own minds up about it."
What a chaotic situation that is. It all derives from the principle which is included and repeated in the Clause now before us,which we are seeking to amend. Therefore we ask the Solicitor-General to look favourably on our Amendment even though it might not be of maximum importance in this Bill. He has an opportunity of very usefully correcting an error in the original Measure. I say with all respect to my hon. and learned Friend that unfortunately he did not ask me in 1944 when he was preparing his Bill. I wish we had then taken the opportunity of putting the matter right. Now the Government have the opportunity of doing so, and I sincerely hope that they will take it.

Sir William Darling: In case the Committee should think that this is a professional matter which my hon. Friends the hon. Members for Henley (Mr. Hay) and Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) have brought forward on professional grounds, I hasten to add my support as a person with no professional standing. I am a member of the ordinary public. It seems that this Amendment has the sole support on the Order Paper of my hon. Friend the Member for

Henley, but that must be an inadvertence. I should have been glad to put my name to it, if I had had the opportunity. This seems a very valuable Amendment.
The private person now is a defenceless creature. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester said, as far as the law is concerned, he lives in an atmosphere of incredible chaos.
 I thank thee, Roderick, for the word! 
It describes the attitude of mind of any person who has the good, or bad, fortune to possess property in these days. He is the subject of unexpected, and even brutal, attacks from all sorts of Government Departments, and, in the main, he is quite defenceless against them. He is innocent of any desire to dispose of his land. He is the possesor of Naboth's Vineyard, but that does not prevent the cupidity or the planning passions of Government Departments desiring to obtain his property.
He is sitting innocently and, perhaps, idly, in possession of his property when a Government Department comes along armed with good intentions and primed with great authority and says to him, "Willy nilly, your property is to be purchased." He resists the temptation and says that he prefers to be left alone, but he is prevented from remaining in that passive situation and is compulsorily induced to enter negotiation. The costs are a great deal. They are uninvited, and the purpose of the Amendment is to see that those costs, which are not sought, and this approach, which he does not desire, shall not end in his defeat.
There are very few defences left for the private individual and the Government should pay reasonable costs for the defence of his right. Last evening I heard hon. Members pleading for the owner-occupier of mining houses in areas affected by subsidence. There seems little essential difference here. Here an owner-occupier in possession of property is being challenged, perhaps quite rightly, by a Government Department and placed in a position where he has to defend himself. This Amendment entitles such persons to reimbursement of these charges.

The Solicitor-General: In the course of his argument, the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) gave the answer to the plea put forward on behalf


of this Amendment. As he said, there are many different powers relating to the acquisition of land, compulsorily and by agreement. I am not saying that the situation is satisfactory as it stands. It has been the subject of negotiation. There have been negotiations between the Treasury Solicitor and the Law Society and, as a result of those negotiations, an agreement was arrived at that in the case of voluntary acquisitions—that is to say, acquisitions other than compulsory acquisitions—the Government Department would pay the full-scale costs of the vendors' solicitors, whether they were charged under schedule 1, or schedule 2. So far those agreements relate only to the case of voluntary acquisitions.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman leaves voluntary acquisitions, may I ask if he appreciates that the Treasury Solicitors' writ does not run throughout? For instance, in the case of the Ministry of Health, for whom the Treasury Solicitors do not act in that capacity, it is invalid and useless.

The Solicitor-General: I quite appreciate that and it will lead to the point I want to make. I was stating the history and the present position. That is the arrangement arrived at at the moment. The Board of Trade are parties to that agreement. They have come into the scheme whereby they pay full-scale costs whether on schedule 1, or schedule 2. This Amendment will go further and say that full scale costs on schedule 1 or schedule 2 should be paid on compulsory acquisitions as well. Whether or not that is the right basis of payment, it would be quite impossible to incorporate it in this Bill.

5.15 p.m.

The hon. Member for Chichester foreshadowed that I would say it was impossible to include it in this Bill because this Bill was only an amendment of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945. That is not the reason. The reason is, as he said, that it would affect a whole number of Departments. It would affect all those different methods of acquiring land compulsorily, which he estimated as about 15. This is a matter which affects a general principle which, if it is right and ought to be embodied in our statutory code, ought to be the subject of legislation in

the proper type of Measure. But it would be impossible in this Bill, with its limited objective, to amend the previous Act and not to deal with any other class of transaction, to affect any other far-reaching claim in the payment of solicitors' costs when land is acquired compulsorily. The hon. Member for Henley said that the position now is covered by the Land Clauses Consolidation Act of 1842 and that only provides for the payment of vendors' costs from the point at which deducing and verifying evidence of title begins.

I hope that hon. Members who support the Amendment and, obviously from their speeches, feel strongly about it, will agree that it would be impossible to include this Amendment in this Bill, with its very limited objective. I hope that with that explanation they will agree that it would be unreasonable to expect us to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said it would be impossible to ask that the Amendment should be incorporated in this Bill. That impossibility does not exist. My hon. Friends have not only moved that it should be included, but have done so in most eloquent and persuasive speeches. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not put forward any justification for the principle that where there is voluntary acquisition, full charges are paid, but where there is compulsory acquisition, less than full charges are paid. It seems very difficult to justify that distinction.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave no indication of his opinion on the matter, and I am sure it would assist my hon. Friends very much in determining what attitude they take if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would say that he thinks an alteration should be made and that full charges should be paid in cases of compulsory acquisition, just as they are paid in cases of voluntary acquisition. I find it difficult to understand why, just because in one case it is compulsory, whereas in the other it is voluntary, it should make such a difference to the solicitors for the vendors who, presumably, have to do the same amount of work.
I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to express his view upon that. All he has said is that it is impossible to


do it in this Bill. I am not quite sure whether that is right. He said it must be done by legislation in its proper place. But compulsory acquisition powers are contained in a vast number of Bills, and if we are to wait before making this change until we get one grand consolidated compulsory acquisition Bill, I do not suppose we shall see this alteration in our lifetime.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that this is the wrong Bill in which to make this change and to create a precedent which would apparently be based upon justice, I ask him to indicate what type of Bill he had in mind when he said, "the right kind of legislation." A Bill dealing with the code of conduct of solicitors would not strike me as the right kind of Bill in which to amend the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. As we are bound to have a Report stage, I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to go so far as to say that he will give further consideration to this point to see whether a start cannot be made in this Measure to iron out an anomaly for which there appears to be no justification, and which the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not in any way seek to justify in his speech.

The Deputy-Chairman: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to withdraw his Amendment?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I have risen because I was hopeful that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was coming to the Despatch Box again to reply to my hon. and learned Friend. Although we had his sympathy, we had little satisfaction from his speech. Cannot the right hon. and learned Gentleman at least give us some assurance that the negotiations to which he was referring will proceed forthwith on the wider scale? The impression has been left in my mind from what he said that, having decided the question of the vendor's solicitors' charges in voluntary acquisition, the matter had been completed. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give us an assurance that he will endeavour to proceed without delay in cleaning up the position with regard to compulsory acquisition, we might be more amenable with regard to this Amendment.
Unless the right hon. and learned Centleman does something of that sort, the Committee will appreciate that there

is no reason whatever why in this Bill he should not amend the provisions for the compulsory acquisition in the principal Measure, and then at least we should have the precedent of a satisfactory block of legislation dealing with the compulsory acquisition by the Board of Trade for this purpose. That can be an isolated unit without interfering with the Town and Country Planning Act, or any of the other methods of compulsory acquisition which have been passed from time to time. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to carry the matter some way further because, although his answer was sympathetic, we had hoped that it would have been more satisfactory.

The Solicitor-General: I am sorry that I cannot give any undertaking such as is asked. The hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. ManninghamBuller) asked me what was my personal view. So far as it is relevant for the purpose of this Debate, my view is that there is no case made out for making a special exception of solicitors' costs in connection with this type of acquisition. That being so, it is hardly relevant for me to go on to say what I think should be the general answer given to the question of costs. What I said, and what I repeat respectfully, is that if a change is desirable it should be made in the appropriate type of Bill. That I described as a Bill dealing generally with solicitors' costs or with the acquisition of land, but not this limited Bill. That is, I think, a reasonable and proper approach.
With regard to the negotiations that have taken place, I referred to them simply to point out that they had left the matter as I described. They began some years back, and the result of negotiations which were carried on was that the full payment of scale costs should be applicable only in the case of non-compulsory acquisition. The complete answer to this Amendment is that it could not be logically and sensibly incorporated in this limited Bill, and that if at any time hereafter the matter has to be reconsidered, it should be reconsidered in connection with the entire code of compulsory acquisition and should be dealt with accordingly in the appropriate type of general Bill dealing with it.

Mr. Hay: I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me if I do not find his sympathy convincing in this instance. I hope I am not being rude in saying so. I want to urge upon him and the Government that this is an act of justice, not to solicitors alone, but to the people whose property is being acquired under this Bill and the statute which it amends. That is why I put down this Amendment, and I hope that even at this stage, we shall have an assurance that the Government will think again about this matter and, if possible, do something to amend this Bill in the way I have suggested.
The Solicitor-General suggested that this was an inappropriate moment and an inappropriate Bill in which to affect a far-reaching change. Yet we must start somewhere and I think this is an appropriate moment to start. The views of the Law Society are probably known to the Solicitor-General because they have been in communication with the Government over the Bill and the point which I have raised. Their views are of some importance, and we should bear in mind that what they have particularly to consider is not only the welfare of the solicitor members of the profession, but also the clients for whom those solicitors act Supposing, by way of illustration, the President of the Board of Trade or his Department wish to acquire some industrial undertaking in one of the development areas under the provisions of the Act and this Bill. It may easily happen, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) said, that there will be prolonged negotiations for which the unfortunate vendor whose property has been compulsorily acquired will have to pay out of his own pocket without the slightest prospect of reimbursement from the Board of Trade who are taking the land away from him.
Because this is a matter of justice, I again urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider whether he cannot give us this assurance, that between now and the later stage of the Bill he will see whether those negotiations can be reopened with the Law Society with a view to the eventual promulgation of legislation in this House to remedy this extremely unsatisfactory position, to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: If I may add one word to that plea, it is not only a question of justice but of morality. If the negotiators in the instance which my hon. Friend has given, carry the matter on so that the vendor is put to a lot of expense and trouble—not the surveyors because they are paid in any event since the Board of Trade covers them completely—the point will be reached where the negotiators for the Government say, "Do not forget that if you agree with us and let us have a voluntary acquisition, we pay all your expenses. If, on the other hand, you force us into a compulsory acquisition, you get only a small charge."

Mr. Fernyhough: I hope the Solicitor-General will resist this Amendment. I can see certain solicitors with a vested interest in long drawn-out negotiations. This Amendment is being brought forward to expedite the provision of work for men who are in want of work, and I am quite sure that it would not be helpful to give any encouragement to protracted negotiations being carried on for which the lawyers are so well paid.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not intend to say anything more about this, could he not at least hold out hope of further consideration? This is a point of great importance, and I am sure that the Solicitor-General has been carried a long way towards agreement by the speeches of my hon. Friends—indeed, by the speech of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough), because any solicitor who acted in the way he suggested would soon lose his practice.

5.30 p.m.

I should like to press the right hon. and learned Gentleman just to say that he will give further consideration to this before the Report stage to see whether something could not be done. After all, an Amendment made in the Bill on this point could affect only compulsory acquisitions made by the Board of Trade within development areas. There is something to be said even for trying it as an experiment in a limited area. If the proposal is incorporated in the Bill, that would be its effect. The right hon. Gentleman would be giving away nothing if he would say that be will apply his mind to this question between now and the Report stage to see whether or not


something could be done. I ask him to go as far as that, because it does not seem to me that by saying that he would be in any way compromising his position

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Woodburn: I feel like craving the indulgence of the Committee for delivering a speech as a back bench Member and I hope, therefore, that I shall have the tolerance of the Committee if I am not able to exercise all the usual arts and wiles of the skilled back bencher. I am in a little doubt as to the meaning of the Clause and what it empowers the Minister to do. I put down two Amendments with a view to elucidating what were his powers. I am a little doubtful whether my Amendments will be within the scope of the Bill and it will help me very greatly, therefore, if by asking my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade some questions I am able to find out exactly what the Bill does.
The first point is that line 9, on page 1, uses the description of
 land including industrial buildings.
The fact that land includes industrial buildings suggests that it includes also other types of buildings. So far as my knowledge goes, land includes all buildings which happen to be upon it. My particular interest is in regard to three areas in Scotland and, probably, the same problem arises also for areas in England and Wales. The first of the three areas in Scotland which are particularly affected is the Highland area. The second is the Greenock area, and the third is the area south of the Edinburgh—Glasgow railway line—Slamannan—taking in the Uplands of b Stirlinoshire, and from south of Falkirk to Linlithgow. I am not clear whether under the Bill the Minister has power to take such steps in these areas as would accomplish the objects which are set out in the Bill.
Perhaps my difficulty would be better illustrated if I stated the problem as I see it. For some years we have had development areas established in Stirling-shire and Greenock and, in more recent times, in a Highland area. So far, however, it has proved impossible to get any private industry to go to these areas. I

should like the President to say what powers he has in the Bill which he can use, if private enterprise is not able or he cannot persuade it to do so, to set up such establishments and undertakings in these areas as are likely to make the wellbeing of the community effective and successful
We have all been greatly concerned whether the Highland population is to be retained in the Highlands, and one of the purposes of a development area is to provide in the Bill inducements to industries or to undertakings to go into that area. No one in the Government or anywhere else—and I think there is a great misunderstanding about this—who knows anything of the facts ever expected a "Black Country" to be set up in the area of the Cromarty Firth. It is clear that in the Highlands industries can only be successful if they have some connection with the life of the area—that is to say, if they are connected with fish, timber or tourism.

Mr. Lyttelton: Or whisky.

Mr. Woodburn: That is a successful industry already and we need not worry about it; it can finance itself. The natural industry for that area would be timber, which is grown there and will continue to be grown, or an industry using timber—for example, furniture, or undertakings and factories of that kind. On the other hand, there might be factories which are capable of using the wool of the Highlands. My idea has been the possibility of getting carpet factories, which could be spread out even into the villages in that area, and smaller industries of that kind which could make an economic life in the Highlands, in addition to agriculture.
The third great industry which is likely to develop, and which ought to be developed, in the Highlands is tourist traffic, which, I understand is now our biggest single dollar earner. No place in the country has a better attraction for Americans, Canadians and others than the Highlands of Scotland.

Mr. McKie: And the Lowlands, too.

Mr. Woodburn: And the Lowlands, too, and the Galloway Highlands. I am sorry that I cannot mention them, for


they are not mentioned in the Bill; they are such a prosperous area already.
I should like my right hon. Friend to tell us, if tourist traffic cannot be accommodated in the existing hotels in the Highlands, whether the term
 land including … buildings 
includes the power to erect, purchase or to establish hotels in the Highlands to provide for the tourist traffic.

Mr. Lyttelton: On a point of Order, Sir Charles. I do not want to interrupt the familiar and very agreeable tones in which the right hon. Gentleman is addressing the Committee, but does the matter of tourist traffic and hotels really fall within the purview of the Bill?

Mr. Woodburn: That is the very question which I am asking.

The Deputy-Chairman: I understood that the right hon. Gentleman was seeking elucidation upon the Clause and was putting his points in the form of questions. He is quite within his rights.

Mr. Woodburn: The term "land" includes all buildings. Hotels are buildings. Since industrial undertakings are mentioned separately here, other land presumably may include some other kind of building, and I want to know whether it includes hotels and whether the President of the Board of Trade has power under the Bill to establish that kind of industry in the Highlands. I should like to be assured that he has that power. If he has not, I should have liked to ask him what he is going to do about it, but that might be outside the scope of the Bill.
Another question is whether under the Bill the President of the Board of Trade has power to take any action in co-operation with private enterprise or independent of private enterprise to acquire these buildings and to use them to carry on industry of any kind or any other undertakings if private enterprise is unable or unwilling to do it. So far, private enterprise has failed to go to the Greenock, Slamannan and Highland Development Areas. If he has not that power, the Bill will fail in its major purpose for those three areas and the other develop. ment areas in the country.
I suggest very seriously that he should consider the matter and inquire closer into

the powers which he has under the Bill. I should like an assurance now or at a later stage that he has these powers. If he has them, no further action will be necessary, but if he has not I hope he will taken an early opportunity to see that such powers are provided. The purpose of the Bill will otherwise be frustrated by the economic inability Qf industries to set up in these areas to do the job which is required to be done for the well-being of the people there and the well-being of the country as a whole.

Mr. Snow: Was my right hon. Friend also arguing for areas outside the existing development areas?

Mr. Woodburn: No, on this Bill I can only discuss the development areas. It all depends on what is meant by "development areas." I think that is the point which my hon. Friend has in mind. Perhaps we can have an explanation on that point later.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) has been able to raise upon the Question "that the Clause stand part of the Bill" not only most of the matters apparently covered by his Amendment which was not in order, but also some other matters which would perhaps be more appropriate for Second Reading discussion. He particularly asked whether hotels came within the purview of the Bill and could be compulsorily acquired. He could have answered that question very easily if he had looked at Clause 1 in which he would have seen that the only extension of a power of acquisition was to " land including industrial buildings," and if he had looked at the 1945 Act he would have seen a definition of " industrial buildings " which obviously would not include an hotel. I therefore hope that we can dispose of that point.
As the Clause is going to be reconsidered, I rose to draw attention to a matter of drafting which requires attention. Section 1 of the 1945 Act gave authority compulsorily to acquire
 land for the provision thereon … of such premises or means of access.
Subsection (5) of the Clause removes those words from the 1945 Act. It follows that under the 1945 Act as amended by the Bill the Board of Trade has an unfettered


power compulsorily to acquire land. If one has a power to acquire land. that in itself includes the power to acquire the buildings upon that land. It seems to me Vint in view of the alteration made by subsection (5) a great deal of subsection (1) is superfluous. I am not talking about the proviso and the two exceptions, but about subsection (1), but I should have thought that a great deal of the rest of it is unnecessary in view of the amendment of the principal Act. As the Clause is to be considered again from a drafting point of view, I hope that the drafting of this portion may be improved.

5.45 p.m.

Lord Dunglass: I did not intend to intervene in the discussion but I may have misunderstood the right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn). Is he suggesting that the Board of Trade should be able to set up, say, a furniture factory in Slamannan, which would then be in active competition with a furniture factory in a development area in Lanarkshire which is at present being run by private enterprise? If so, I very much hope that the President of the Board of Trade will resist it, and if he does not do so I shall be very much inclined to vote against the Bill because it seems to me to be giving the President powers which he ought not to have.

Mr. John Grimston: This Clause seems to contain the heart of the Bill from which the President in his Second Reading speech evidently expects a very great deal. He pointed out in that speech that one of the principal difficulties facing the Development Areas at the moment is the provision of work for men. He is right. Many of us who have been interested in this problem over a number of years know that the type of industry which is being attracted to the Development Areas is not really an industry at all in many cases. The Clause empowers him to purchase existing factories which in his view will no doubt be found to be more suitable to the type of industry which he wishes to attract.
In my view many of the factories which he has already built—standard factories—not at all suitable to the type of industry which should employ men. I feel that the purpose of the Clause will be doubly reinforced if the Minister learns that factories must be built for the particular

industries which they are intended to serve he must not put up a factory and then hope to attract to the area an industry to which the factory will be suited.
I should like to know whether the President feels that he has power under the Clause to purchase the buildings of an industry which is proposing to leave a development area. He will know that one of the tragedies of development areas at the moment, apart from the fact that a number of refugee and frivolous industries are entering them, is that the new and basic industries are not entering them in great numbers and that some which have gone to those areas have since left. Take the case of the Blaenavon factory which was engaged in making railway tyres and wheels. It was thoroughly suited to the development area in which it was placed, and it was the only industry in a very large town. It was provided before the war with money under the special areas arrangement. Yet that industry left the development area, and also left the country.
I was very interested at the time, and I am quite convinced that had the Board of Trade had powers to take over the buildings which were housing that plant sufficient finance would have been forthcoming to enable that heavy and very satisfactory industry, which moreover was one employing men, to remain in the development area, and consequently have strengthened the point which, on the Minister's own admission, is weak. I feel it is not so much powers he needs but the will to persuade people, and to back that up, as I think he will be able, under Clause 1, to do, with the power of taking over buildings which will be highly satisfactory and suitable for other purposes.

Mr. John MacLeod: I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will resist the sugestions made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn). I represent a Highland area, part of which was scheduled as a development area, into which no new industry has come since it was designated a development area. I do not wish to repeat the speech I made on the Second Reading of this Bill, when I put some specific questions which I think I could now raise, and to which no reply was given by the Secretary for Overseas Trade when he replied on that occasion.
I intervened at the end of his speech and asked him why I had not received any reply. He said that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland had intervened and that had I been in my place I would have received a reply to my questions. I looked through the report of that Debate and found that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland had not made a speech. Therefore, I thought that some statement of policy must have been prepared or contemplated by the Government in view of the fact that the Secretary for Overseas Trade thought that the Minister had spoken. Perhaps he was not in his place throughout the Debate.
I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will now tell us why no new industries have been set up in this development area. If private enterprise does not go into that area, there must be a very good reason. I do not think that the Government will have any greater success than would private enterprise by going into the area. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will resist the suggestions made by the right hon. Member for East Stirling.

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Member points out that private enterprise has not gone into the area, and then says that the Government ought not to go there. If neither private nor public enterprise is to do anything about it would he tell us who is to do so?

Mr. MacLeod: I was coming to that point. I believe the reason to be that the Government are treating the Highland development area in a similar manner to other development areas. That is absolutely wrong. The Measure should be interpreted in a much less harsh way than it is at present. Housing is one of the greatest difficulties in the area, as in all areas. No industry will ever be persuaded to go into the Highlands when the industry that already exists there cannot expand because of lack of housing. There is also the question of power. Have the Government made any plans for industrialists who set up industrial concerns to use power near the source of its production? The Government must improve the basic services—the foundations—in the Highland area. Private enterprise will go into the area if the foundations are soundly laid. That should be the only

work which the Government should undertake in that area.

Mr. D. J. Williams: I wish to put some questions'to the President of the Board of Trade on how this Bill will affect us in South Wales. We in South Wales have been seriously perturbed for some time by the serious problem of unemployment. It is true that a great deal has been done under the original Act, but I am stating the views of myself and my colleagues from South Wales when I express my disappointment that this Bill does not meet the fundamentals of our problem.
I wish to know from the President of the Board of Trade whether he has powers, either in this Bill or outside this Bill, to tenant the idle factories which we now have in that development area. They were built by the Board of Trade or by the Government a number of years ago, and, so far, private enterprise has not been persuaded to take them over, use them for productive purposes and employ people who have been unemployed for many years. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will be able to give us in South Wales some indication that he has the power, inside or outside that Bill, to tackle that very grave problem.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am rather surprised that the ideological obsessions of Members representing Highland constituencies are preventing them from giving what I believe would be perfectly reasonable support to the view expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn). I know that it would be quite out of order to discuss his Amendment at this stage, but I, too, would like to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that he has powers under Clause 1 to say that public enterprise will step in where private enterprise obviously fears to tread? One would think that the example already quoted of the Scottish Hydro-Electric Corporation would have encouraged the Minister to give satisfactory assurances on this point.
I wish to stress the point of view put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling, and to say that he represents a considerable body of opinion in Scotland in asking that the full powers of public enterprise shall be used


in the development of the Highlands. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade is not under the misapprehension under which the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) appears to be in thinking that whisky is the main dollar earner of Scotland. It was recently pointed out by the Chairman of the Scottish Tourist Board that tourism is a far bigger dollar earner than is whisky. I should prefer to see the tourist industry encouraged rather than the whisky industry. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will assure us that he will not be in any way deflected by the obsessions of those who think that out-of-date private enterprise may possibly galvanise the Highlands into economic recovery.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Fernyhough: I hope that the Minister will be able to look seriously at the question my right hon. Friend has put to him. I am rather amazed at some of the observations made by hon. Members opposite. I understood that they were committed to a policy of whole employment exactly as we are. This Bill is an endeavour to provide employment for men who are out of work. Men who are out of work will not " care two hoots " whether they are employed by private enterprise or by the Government; they seek employment, and they will make no discrimination whether that employment is provided by the Government or by private enterprise.
Let us assume that in a certain development area there are factories which can be taken over. Let us assume also that no employer is prepared to provide employment, and yet in certain circumstances there may be bottlenecks which in specific industries need to be overcome if our economic difficulties are to be surmounted. Why should not the Minister consider taking the necessary powers to set up whatever particular industry may be necessary to provide work and also to help us over our economic difficulties? I would say to hon. Members opposite that it would be a very dangerous thing for a party trying to improve its chances at the next election—

Mr. Lyttelton: On a point of Order—

The Deputy-Chairman: I think it would be very dangerous to go further on that point.

Mr. Fernyhough: It would be dangerous. We are asking the Minister—

Mr. Lyttelton: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) in order in raising a number of things which, by no process of the imagination can be contained in Clause 1, and in indulging in a number of electoral forecasts which at any other time might be highly exhilarating, but are entirely irrelevant to the matter now before the Committee?

The Deputy-Chairman: That is true. The Debate on the Question, " That the Clause stand part of the Bill," is very narrow.

Mr. Fernyhough: The Clause really deals with the acquisition of necessary buildings. I was pointing out that the power is not sufficient, and what I want the President to have is not only power to secure factories, but power to man the factories if that is necessary. I assure him that if he could think of bringing in the necessary Amendment at a later stage to give him that power, it would be much appreciated, particularly in the development areas.

Sir Herbert Williams: I understood from the concluding words of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough)—I hope I did not mis-hear him—that he said something about the power to man factories. Very fortunately, some little time ago His Majesty's Government abandoned direction of labour. I wish to know clearly whether the hon. Member means that he proposes to restore direction of labour? I think we ought to have that made clear.

Mr. Fernyhough: If the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) had been in the last Parliament, he would know where I stood on that matter.

Sir H. Williams: But where does the hon. Gentleman stand now?

The Deputy-Chairman: He does not stand at all. Mr. Wilson.

Mr. H. Wilson: rose—

Sir H. Williams: I gave way

Mr. Wilson: On a point of Order. Is it in order on Clause 1 to go into the question of the direction of labour?

Sir H. Williams: The hon. Member for Jarrow mentioned it. I expressed great surprise. Then the hon. Member rose, and I naturally gave way, as I always do, because it pays handsomely. Then the hon. Member said that I knew where he stood last time. I am not concerned with that. All I am concerned with is where he stood three minutes ago. He made a proposal that the President of the Board of Trade should provide for the manning of factories. I understood that the whole object of this Bill was to provide factories in districts where there was a surplus of labour; and therefore it does not seem necessary in those circumstances to direct labour to places where there is already a surplus.

Mr. Fernyhough: I never said that.

Sir H. Williams: If that is not what the hon. Member meant, I do not know what he meant, and I do not know why he spoke at all.

Mr. H. Wilson: I do not think that the contribution of the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) has carried us very much further. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow was referring to the use of these factories. A number of hon. Members have discussed the possible use of these factories by private enterprise or by public enterprise. I think that was before the hon. Member for Croydon, East came into the Chamber.

Sir H. Williams: No, I heard all that.

Mr. Wilson: I certainly think that the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow were quite appropriate; and I suggest that he can use the phrase " manning up " these factories, without bringing into consideration the question of direction of labour.
I find it a little difficult to answer all the questions put to me without getting very wide of this Clause. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) asked what powers the Government had under this Clause to provide factories when private enterprise failed to provide employment. This point was taken up by a number of hon. Members opposite. As my right hon.

Friend will realise, this Clause gives me no power whatsoever in that direction. He also knows that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply has certain limited powers for the operation of factories and there is nothing to stop the operation of this Clause in handing over these factories to him within those powers. The hon. Member for Lanark (Lord Dunglass) was somewhat insensed at the suggestion of my right hon. Friend. If I understood him rightly, he said that he would be very much opposed to the Board of Trade taking the power to manufacture under this Clause; and he hoped that I would resist, or else he might feel very much like voting against the Bill.

Lord Dunglass: What I am concerned about is that in Lanarkshire we have been very successful in attracting private enterprise in many small industries; but the right hon. Member for East Stirling is close by, and if the Government come barging along and put some factories in Slamannan, it will absorb into Slamannan the labour at present in Lanarkshire.

Mr. Wilson: I am glad to have from the noble Lord that tribute to the success of the policy of attracting industry to Lanarkshire during the four or five years of operation of this Government. It certainly is a revolutionary situation in Lanark, as I think he would be the first to admit.

Mr. Lyttelton: That is why he has come in.

Mr. Wilson: I have no doubt that the noble Lord is perfectly capable of making speeches, as does the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), claiming something of the success under those Measures.

Mr. Lyttelton: Are we still on Clause 1?

Mr. Wilson: I was on Clause 1, answering points raised by the noble Lord, who developed his points for several minutes without the right hon. Member for Aldershot objecting. I was surprised to hear the noble Lord arguing in that way, because it sounded to me, as the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes) said, as if he was prepared to let his doctrinaire views stand in the way of providing employment for the people in the development areas when private enterprise had manifestly failed to man


up the factories which we have obtained under the powers given under Clause 1.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling dealt with the question of the tourist trade and the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) dealt with that point when he followed him. Of course, under Clause 1 we have no powers to deal with hotel premises but only with industrial premises. The hon. and learned Member for Northants, South, also raised the question of the drafting of this Clause. Between now and the next stage I will look into the point he raised and see whether I can give effect to it, along with the other redrafting which I have undertaken shall be done.
The hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Grimston) raised the question of the building of factories for particular uses Here again, it is very difficult to follow him very far without getting out of order. Of course, Clause 1 gives the Board of Trade powers only to take over factories which have already been built, whether for particular uses or not. I think that what he was trying to do was to bring in in some way, under the question before the Committee, some amount of criticism of the fact that factories have been built not for particular uses but following a standardised pattern. I do not think I need tell him that by far the larger number of factories built in the development areas have been built to meet the needs of particular clients, and have had very many developments of certain types in order to meet the needs of the industry or the industrialist concerned.
There have been a number of Government advance factories. Most of them have been very happily tenanted by people who have come along afterwards, though my hon. Friend who raised the point about South Wales correctly said that there are now a small number of advance factories which have still not been let. A good number of them have been let in recent months, particularly some of the so-called Remploy factories which we have discussed previously.

Mr. J. Grimston: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not want to bypass my point. He has himself admitted that the principal difficulty in the

development areas is to get employment for men. My point was that, if we are to employ men, generally speaking we need factories with heavy equipment. That is not provided in the small, what I call, " box " factories. If the right hon. Gentleman is trying to employ men, he must go in for the other type of factory.

Mr. Wilson: Some of what the hon. Gentleman calls " box " factories are very successful now in providing employment for men, as many of my hon. Friends can testify from experience in their own constituencies. We cannot in every case wait for years for private industrialists to come along. Some of these advance factories have been specially designed for the needs of heavy industry as opposed to the light industries which, as the hon. Gentleman said, very often employ women to a considerable extent rather than men; but of course, so far as concerns new developments to employ men, undoubtedly it will be by the building of factories to meet the needs of particular industries rather than by advance factories that the problem will be solved. As the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, we have not put in hand the building of any advance factories for a year or two, with, I think, the exception of one or two very small factories indeed in isolated areas of North Wales to meet a particular local problem there.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(PROVISION BY AGREEMENT OF FACILITIES ON LAND NOT OWNED BY BOARD.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I believe that this Clause goes too far in a policy of the appeasement of landlords. In line 45 the Clause states:
… with the agreement of all persons interested in that land.
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman why compulsory powers have not been taken under this Clause to make absolutely sure that no landlord may have the power to cripple the development undertakings contemplated. I believe that in all these developments the community


should have the final say; but when we say:
… with the agreement of all persons interested in that land.
that means that we shall allow the matter to depend upon the whim of the landlord. Our experience is that landlords frequently hold up undertakings for antisocial reasons. In Ayrshire, for example, we have found that recently a large housing scheme has been held up because a local landlord has gone to the expense of entering into litigation to prevent a sewer being laid across land adjacent to the housing site.

Mr. Lyttelton: Is it in Order for the hon. Member to discuss sewers?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is giving an example of why this Clause should not stand part of the Bill, but I think that perhaps he is going a little further than he need.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Hughes: Hon. Gentlemen opposite missed the point entirely. It has not permeated to the understanding of the Anglo-Saxons on the Front Bench opposite. I am surprised that the intervention came from the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton). I do not know whether he assumes that development works can be carried out without sewerage schemes. That was an illustration.
Hovering round the fringes of these development areas, will be the usual rapacious, greedy landlords, supported by unscrupulous End money-making lawyers. Therefore, I suggest that, if this Bill is to be successful, the President of the Board of Trade should take under this Clause the absolute compulsory powers that so often have been found essential in connection with other public utility schemes. We must not start at this stage with a policy of appeasement of the landlord class just to conciliate hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. H. Wilson: The reason why we have not sought powers under this Clause to be able to move compulsorily in this matter is that, in all our experience in the development areas, such powers have not been found necessary. They are not necessary today and, as far as we can see, they are not likely to prove

necessary in the future. I refer only to Clause 2. I do not refer to other matters in connection with which compulsory powers may often be required. We have required powers for the acquisition of land. Hon. Members gave us those powers. We have required powers for the acquisition of land with factories already built on the land. We are asking the Committee this afternoon to give us those powers.
But we have not at any stage found it necessary, nor do we now find it necessary, to ask for compulsory powers in this matter of easements and the provision of facilities on land which we do not own. If we did find it necessary, we should not hesitate to ask for those powers. Had we asked for them now, their use would have been purely hypothetical. I can tell my hon. Friend that when we looked at the drafting of the Bill we found that the provision of compulsory powers would have added tremendously to its complexity. For various technical reasons which I do not want to discuss now, it would have required the provision of lengthy and extensive Schedules which, as I have said, so far as we can see, we should not need.
Under the previous Acts which this Bill seeks to amend, the Board of Trade had power to carry out work on land owned by the Board of Trade. We had no powers to carry out work—or it was doubtful whether we had powers to carry out work on land not owned by the Board of Trade. For instance, I refer to land owned by some private landowner, land perhaps belonging to a factory which was in the possession of the Board of Trade and which has been handed over to the factory owner but on which some work still required to be done. It is doubtful whether we would have been strictly within the law in doing that work, even though we might have contracted to do so.
It might be necessary to do work on railway sidings on land owned by British Railways. There is some doubt whether we have the power. This Clause makes it clear that we shall have the power, but I assure my hon. Friend that we have not needed the compulsory powers he mentioned. Our failure to ask for them is not in any sense a matter of appeasement of the kind of persons he described in such colourful language.
It is simply because we do not need them, and we did not want to make the Bill far more complicated by asking for powers which we did not think we needed.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(FURTHER PROVISION FOR GRANTS AND LOANS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Lyttelton: I wish to raise.a point which is strictly within the terms of this Clause. During the Second Reading Debate, the President used words which caused me some anxiety. He said this:
 It deals with circumstances resulting from the physical removal of plant and stock,
and we all agree about that, as that is the payment by the Board of Trade to cover the physical removal of plant and stock, as set out in Clause 3. But the right hon. Gentleman went on:
 There may be three, four, six or perhaps even more months during which the ' green ' labour involved brings a loss to the firm in question, and one of the ways in which the facilities under this Clause might be used would be to provide some financial recompense to an employer who is faced with a period of low productivity from the labour he recruits locally.
I think that is going a little far, and it seems to me to conflict with something which the right hon. Gentleman said himself and which was reiterated by the Secretary for Overseas Trade, who wound up the Debate. Later on in the same column from which I have quoted, the President said:
 If I may coin a phrase well-known to hon. Gentleman opposite, this is intended to be a ' once for all ' arrangement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1950; Vol. 473, c. 1038.]
Later, the Secretary for Overseas Trade said this:
 We regard the Bill as clearly indicating the exceptional nature of cases and provision of limited scope to cover the removal and incidental cost—a once-for-all payment, as my right hon. Friend put it."-[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1950; Vol. 473, c. 1132.]
I think we are opening up a much wider vista if this Clause is to be invoked to carry on what is, in fact, a subsidy to the new producer in his current costs.
I am satisfied that, when an industry transfers from a non-development area to

a development area, it is perfectly proper that the State should provide the money to cover the removal, and even possibly the loss of profits while there is no production taking place during the transfer, but I am frankly doubtful whether, where an employer has been persuaded to go into a development area, there is a case for asking that the period of low productivity in the development area should be subsidised by the State. Of course, the hon. Member for Ayrshire South (Mr. Emrys Hughes) regards all employers. landlords and lawyers as thieves we have just heard so.

Mr. Wilson: Only in development areas.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is not the right hon. Gentleman going rather wide?

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Gentleman understands the Anglo-Saxon language, and I would say that I was merely dealing with an illustration taken from the rather conciliatory remarks of the hon. Member below the Gangway. I do not think that the State should be in the position of having to subsidise a loss of productivity due to " green " labour, which is extremely difficult to establish, and which, in the words of the President of the Board of Trade, may take three,. four, six or even more months. I would like some assurance on the matter before we part with the Clause.

Miss Irene Ward: I want to raise one point in connection with subsection (2) of this Clause in relation to housing. It has been the policy of the Government, through the Housing Associations, to provide money for the building of houses for key workers, and, if I may say so on this occasion, I think that has been a very wise and very helpful policy for the development areas. It has been brought to my notice from my own part of the country on more than one occasion that some of the houses for key workers which are being provided are being built at a cost of some £4,000 per house and over.
I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the purpose of allowing the expenditure of considerable sums of money on these houses—far in excess of any sum allowed to any other person in the community. I am not saying that from the point of view of being parsimonious or of not wanting key workers to have good houses in the development areas. The


difficulty arising from the building of these houses is that some of the key workers who have been pursuaded to go to development areas—and they have not always wanted to go—to help in the establishment and running of the new factories, are finding that the rents which they are charged for by the Housing Association are really far more than they can afford to pay out of the wages which they receive.
I know of one firm in which the employer—and I do not take the same view of employers as the hon. Gentleman opposite—has been obliged to pay the rates on highly-rented houses in order to help some of his key workers to meet the cost of living. I think the President and hon. Members opposite would take the view that we do not want to increase the cost of living to those people who go there to man our factories, and I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman could give me an assurance on this point. This matter has, in fact, been suggested to me through various people in my constituency, and I would say right away that my own local authority, the Tynemouth 'Corporation, has been instrumental in developing a very good development area, assisted by the legislation which was started by the National Government and continued by the Coalition and Conservative Governments in 1945.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Lady has had a great deal of latitude, but we are dealing only with Clause 3 of this Bill.

Miss Ward: I will not pursue that subject further, but I did want to point out that my local authority had helped in that development.
It has been suggested that, if houses for key workers are to cost these large sums of money, the Government should find some means of allowing them to live at an economic rent in relation to their own salaries. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would explain the high cost of these houses, and would say what he proposes to do to help these key workers in their difficulties.

Mr. Wilson: Your ruling the hon. Lady out of Order in the middle of one of her more eloquent sentences, Sir Charles, prevents me following her on that point and attempting to put her historical sense into

correct perspective. I should like to reply to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) on the apparent incompatibility of two of my remarks during the Second Reading Debate, in one of which I said that this was to be a " once for all " payment.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am not so much concerned about the incompatibility as about the remark concerning " green " labour.

Mr. Wilson: Secondly, I had said that it might take three, four or even six months, and it would appear to be something of a continuing subsidy, about which the right hon. Gentleman opposite was very concerned. I hope I can satisfy him on this matter.
The point is that, in the kind of transfer envisaged in this Clause, one might imagine the Board of Trade discussing with particular industrialists the possible transfer of industrial plant and equipment from some area to a development area. The industrialist might feel that it was desirable, in his own interest, in the national interest and in the interests of a full employment policy, that he should go, but he might point out certain special additional costs of the transfer in the physical uprooting and removal of plant and so on, with which we have full powers to deal in this Clause. But, among other things, he might point out that for the first few months of the operation of the factory in the development area, he might be running at a temporary loss because of the recruitment of green labour which, perhaps, in time will become just as efficient as the labour in the area in which his factory was originally sited

6.30 p.m.

What we had in mind here was that, in the negotiations with him and in the payment of a lump sum to cover the actual cost of removal, account could be taken of the probable additional loss resulting from the use of untrained labour during that period. There is certainly no question of looking at his books and costs month by month, and paying him a subsidy to make up for such loss, but an allowance might be made in appropriate cases for the estimate of the loss in productivity and for spoilt material and other things which very often, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, add to the cost of a firm transferring a factory to a development area.

Mr. Lyftelton: I am not quite happy about this, although the right hon. Gentleman has said something to reassure me. Perhaps some of my hon. Friends have greater experience of this matter than I, but certainly no hon. Member present has, and I can only say that it is necessary to start training the so-called " green " labour long before the transfer takes place. I think I have transferred production to a greater number of development areas than any other hon. Member present. If the President of the Board of Trade doubts that, I think I could prove it.
I have found in every case that the labour in the development area is quite sufficiently adaptable and takes very readily to these new jobs, and I do not believe that if the industry is properly conducted, there is any need to make a loss, except in very unusual circumstances over a period when so-called green labour is being used. The labour ought to begin to be trained before the transfer takes place, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make very exceptional use of these powers. I think that when it is proposed to make good the loss of production for five or six months because of the presence of the so-called green labour, that is going outside this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman has not reassured me, but I shall not speak further on the matter.

Mr. Kinley: To my mind, the point about " green " labour is one of the most important provisions in the Bill from the viewpoint of my own constituency. which is in the development area of Merseyside. Our unemployment problem is where it was before I was born, and that was a long time ago. One of our difficulties is that we have the highest measure of employment which Merseyside has ever had, except during the war. Our unemployment problem has been a most difficult one to deal with because most employers in established industries have been unable to make use of our unemployed men and women owing to the fact that an overwhelming majority of those who were out of work, and had been out of work for long periods, were what I would term semi-skilled or unskilled.
When men have been unemployed for many years, I do not think we have the right when we encourage an employer to

bring a factory from outside into that area—thus benefiting us by such transfer —to expect him to undertake any further financial responsibility in the training of those who, from our point of view, have hitherto been untrainable. They are " green " in every sense of the term. It may take a long time before many of them are able to make any useful contribution to the new industry. Therefore, I think that the Government ought, through the Board of Trade, to accept responsibility for assisting employers in such cases.

Mr. Woodburn: I wish to raise one small point, though an important one, with regard to some of the development areas. Under Clause 3, the financing of these changes raises the question of what is the most economic way of accomplishing what is set out in the Clause. I want to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question related to the Amendment which I put down— what guarantee has he that within the terms of this Clause, the transfer of a works to a place strictly within a development area might not be much more extravagant than if it could be sited just outside the borders of that development area? For example, a railway line is frequently taken as the boundary of a development area, and I have a specific case in mind. When a site is found, it is a matter of chance as to which side of the railway line is most suitable. It seems to me quite fantastic that where, under the terms of the Development Area Act, a railway line represents the boundary, a transferred works must go to a site quite unsuited for its purpose when a perfectly suitable site exists on the other side of the line. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say whether there is any way in which he can get round that difficulty.

Mr. Lyttelton: Might I suggest that on this occasion the President of the Board of Trade might use the same ingenuity about the two sides of the railway line as the right hon. Gentleman has himself used in trying to keep in Order on this Clause.

Mr. Woodburn: I am sorry that the noble Lord the Member for Lanark (Lord Dunglass) seemed to suggest that I was going to establish forest factories in Slamannan, which is in that development area. Unfortunately, no trees will grow there, so there would be no point in having a factory in such a place. I


referred to the Highlands in that connection, and I was sorry to hear an hon. Member say that unless private enterprise could set up a factory in the Highlands, he would rather not have it.

Mr. John MacLeod: I did not say that; I said that if private enterprise did not go into the area, there was a good reason for it not doing so, and that I did not think a nationalised industry going into the area would make a greater success of it than would private enterprise.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. Gentleman has very ably asked the President of the Board of Trade a question which really amounts to the question, when is a development area not a development area? I wish to put another question to the President to which I think I ought to get an answer, because I am sure he can give it. Presumably, of course, there will be some item in the Votes for grants for this purpose, but what information will this House have at any time of the way in which that money is expended by the Board of Trade?
I am not asking for a report from the Development Corporations but, if these grants are going to be made by the Board of Trade with the consent of the Treasury, information ought to be given to this House as to what money is expended. It is not sufficient to say it can be ascertained from the Public Accounts Committee or the Estimates Committee in advance, because that depends upon whether there is an opportunity of doing so. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to state in what form information as to the grants that are made will be made available. If he adheres to his view that grants should be made in respect of green labour it would be important that the information supplied should distinguish between the particular items in respect of which it is given. Thus people should be enabled to learn how much has been spent in subsidising the industry during the first few months in its new location.

Mr.Mainwaring: I fail to see what is new in the proposal made in this Clause. In my experience, employers in the development areas have been assisted for years in training " green " labour to become efficient employees. This Clause is far from saying that grants will be made in every case.
The proposal is that it should be done where it is considered wise and economically necessary to encourage employment. That is what is required in South Wales.

Mr. Lyttelton: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to intervene, he is on an important aspect of something which I may have misunderstood. Of course, facilities are given for training labour, but what worries me is that under this Clause the Board of Trade may contribute a subsidy for several months to the employers because the labour is not yet fully trained. There are the two separate points, first the training and then the subsidisation.

Mr. Maimwaring: The one arises from the other. We have empty factories now in my division constructed for the Board of Trade by the Wesh estate. If an employer is encouraged sufficiently to come there, his labour is obviously going to be " green " in that area. There is no trained labour for whatever process he decides to embark upon, apart from some key workers. If it is a necessary condition to have a factory suitably employed in a certain place, it is necessary that the potential employer should be encouraged for six months if need be. It is all to the good of the nation and of the unemployed in that area.

Sir W. Darling: I should not have taken part in this Debate had it not been for the observation made by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Kinley). I hope I have not misunderstood him, but he seemed to envisage that the Clause would be greatly extended. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham.Buller) that under Clause 3 the Board of Trade can make grants in exceptional circumstances. I hope it is quite clear that there will be the severest restriction on such grants as the Board of Trade will propose. I hope the Treasury will perform its duty, otherwise we may have the greatest distortion and the sacrificing of successful industry in assisting cases where, through inadequate management,. an industry employing " green " labour falls into the sere and yellow leaf without having gone into production.
It would be deplorable if skill and production had to make undue provision indefinitely for the unskilled and unproductive. I enter a caveat that any grant


should be very limited. The temptation to take the new large factories which exist, as the Board of Trade do not often tell us, in considerable abundance empty in Scotland and elsewhere is already a measure of the failure or semi-failure of this policy. A further subsidy for this development is a very doubtful weapon and should be used most charily. The successful man cannot indefinitely carry the unsuccessful, and the competent cannot indefinitely prop up the incompetent. There is no market in the export field where buyers say We prefer to take goods and services from factories in British development areas."
I am glad that the President makes it clear that this exceptional assistance will be limited to the preparatory stages of training and that it is not an extension of permanent subsidy to these development areas if the proposed experiment proves unsuccessful. I fully agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward) regarding the housing question. In my experience quite important industries would have gone to the development areas but for the insuperable difficulties of local authorities in providing housing for as few as 60 workers transferred to those areas. Unless this Bill is backed by strong support, in the form of grants and loans to the housing associations, for the provision of dwellings for transferred workers, I see very little in this Clause with which we are not already familiar.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Manuel: I should like to have clarification from the President of Clause 3 (2), line 12, which states:
 The Board of Trade may with the consent of the Treasury make grants or loans to housing associations …
to the end. Throughout Scotland, wherever the Board of Trade have attempted location of industry, housing has given rise to difficulties. I foresee greater difficulties arising if the provisions of this Clause go through in their present form.
I am thinking of one industrial estate still to be developed, with only one factory site yet, right in the heart of a small borough area. I am quite certain the small borough would be most antagonistic if the Board of Trade agreed, by grant or otherwise, to authorise the coming into the area of a housing asso

ciation to provide houses for key workers or any other workers in that industry. I feel certain that the local authority would be only too pleased to build the houses for the Board of Trade or any other Government Department provided they had the same facilities as the housing association. The difficulty that the local authority have been in is that they have been asked to meet this commitment for key workers out of their current allocation.
I am sure that, as far as the provision of houses is concerned, local authorities could build the houses cheaper and let them at a rent which the normal type of worker would find more easy to pay. We have had experience throughout Scotland of our Scottish Special Housing Association being utilised to provide houses. Their rents have proved to be completely outside the means of the people who were to occupy them ultimately. I hope that I shall have an assurance that, under this Measure, the local authorities in my constituency will be the medium for providing houses for any industrial development there. I am sure that they will be delighted to do it and that they can do it at a cost which will ensure that the houses will be within the means of those who are to occupy them.

Mr. Pickthorn: I did not quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's explanation about " green " labour, and I fully admit that, of course, that may be my fault. On the face of the subsection,
 Where it is proposed to establish an industrial undertaking … and … the Board of Trade are satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances … the Board may.. make such a grant.
But it does not appear that " green " labour could be an exceptional circumstance because, upon the face of it, the labour would always be " green." Is it not the case that the labour that is going to be employed is not brought there for the purpose, but is secured from the previously settled population and therefore must be " green "? Therefore, it did not seem to me easy to follow how it could come under the category of an exceptional circumstance that in any given case it should be " green." I wonder if we could have that point clarified beyond any doubt.

Mr. H. Wilson: The point raised by the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pick-thorn) has been to a large extent already answered by the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton). The right hon. Member for Aldershot spoke just after I did some minutes ago, and said that his experience—he undoubtedly has great experience of transferring factories to the development areas—has been that the new labour he has employed there has been fully productive in a very short time and that no question of the cost of " green " labour arose.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that in very many cases that is so; but if the right hon. Gentleman had been operating, not factories connected with electrical engineering and associated industries, but, shall we say, a tannery, and if he had been in the position of the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Odey), he would have found that to have transferred his factory to a development area would have involved him in pretty considerable costs for two or three months, particularly with respect to spoilt materials, quite apart from the low productivity of the labour that was being trained. The point is that it is exceptional in a transferred factory to find that the labour costs are high for a period sufficient to involve the factory management making a case to us and to the Treasury for such a grant. I think that is the answer to the hon. Member for Carlton.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Kinley): raised a question about Merseyside. I share his concern about the unemployment position there, in spite of all that has been done to improve it, as compared with pre-war days; but I assure him that the question of training men to be skilled craftsmen is already dealt with under existing powers possessed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. Perhaps I have stirred up too much interest in this point about " green " labour, because it is very exceptional indeed and is only one of the things that might be taken into account when deciding how much cost was involved in a transfer. I was not trying to suggest that all labour costs will be covered, because my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour already has powers to deal with that point. That is also the answer to my hon. Friend

the Member for Rhondda, East (Mr Mainwaring).

My hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn): raised a very interesting question about the definition of a development area, and showed great ingenuity in bringing it in on this Clause. What he sought to do, although prevented from doing so by the rules of order, was to amend the principal Act in respect of the definition of a development area. It is, of course, out of order to do that. It would be out of order for me to follow him very far on the point that he raised, but I think I could answer him by saying that the point he has in mind—it might apply in other areas, too, and it is not always a question of a railway line causing difficulty—could be dealt with by Motions being put down for the Board of Trade to alter the boundaries of the development area, which would enable us to bring in the little bit of land on the other side of the railway line to which my hon. Friend referred, if a strong case were made for that to be done. If it were going to be more expensive to build on the other side of the railway line, we should want to consider the suggestion.
I was asked how the House would be informed of the special payments under this Clause. This is a difficult question, and I should like to have more time in which to consider it. We have given a little thought to it, but I am afraid that I am not yet in a position to say anything about it to the Committee. I think hon. Members opposite will agree that for me to give an undertaking now and publish details of all special grants might be extremely difficult and embarrassing for some of the firms concerned, because it might involve the particulars of transactions being made available to the public and to their competitors, and perhaps to their foreign buyers. On the other hand, I agree that to give the Board of Trade powers to make expenditure of this kind is a very special act on the part of the House, and therefore when it comes to consider this matter the House will need to be satisfied that this money is properly used.
Reference was also made to the Public Accounts Committee. That is a rather long-dated means of following up what has been done. If I could readily think of a quick answer as to how the matter could be dealt with, without causing embarrassment to the firms concerned,


whom we are all asking to go to the development areas, I should certainly give an answer; but we do not want to subject those firms to any undue inquisition into their affairs.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the answer on the Report stage?

Mr. Wilson: If I can find an answer, I will certainly do that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, Central (Mr. Manuel) raised a question of the local authority houses, and said that he hoped the local authorities would be given special help in this matter such as may be given to the housing associations. He referred particularly to the question of granting of houses to key workers outside the existing allocations. I would be out of order in following him on that point, because this Clause gives me power to deal with the associations only. Any question on the point he has raised would have to be put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland outside the scope of this Measure.

Miss Ward: Could the right hon. Gentleman give me an answer in reply to the point I raised about the housing associations and housing costs?

Mr. Wilson: Again, I should be a long way out of order if I tried to follow the hon. Lady on that point. This Clause now gives us powers to use the housing associations for this purpose. The point she raised referred to houses already built before we had these powers. She knows why it is necessary to build rather special houses in these cases. If she has in mind particular cases of houses costing more than would be reasonable having regard to the type of house, and perhaps having regard to the remote areas where they are built, I should be glad to look into

them, and so would my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health; but I should be out of order in dealing with housing associations if I were to follow her very far.

Miss Ward: We have had those cases for a long time.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could a spokesman from the Scottish Office give us some further elucidation of subsection (2) of the Clause? It is a matter in which we in Scotland are vitally concerned. In fact, we have to meet the very same problems as those which were referred to by the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward). Could we have some explanation about the financial provisions of Clause 3 (2)? Will the Board of Trade be empowered to give further grants for the housing of key workers in areas where there is likely to be a great deal of difference in the rents of the houses of the key workers and the houses owned by the local authority in the area?
I hope the Board of Trade are not going to make the same mistake as is being made by the National Coal Board, where the rents of houses on one side of the road are 10s. a week cheaper than those on the other side of the road. This causes a good deal of heartburn. I should like to know whether under that subsection an attempt will be made to solve this financial problem. Could we have some assurance that the mistakes made by the Coal Board will not be perpetuated by the Board of Trade and that there will be some attempt at financial provision which will lead to an equalisation of rent in those areas?
It being Seven o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair, further Proceeding standing postponed until after the consideration of Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business).

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Orders of the Day — ILFORD CORPORATION BILL

(By Order)

Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Bill be now read a Second time."

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: On a point of Order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to the form these two Debates will take? We are to have a Debate on the Ilford Corporation Bill followed by a Debate on the Luton Corporation Bill. Both Bills seek to create new county borough authorities, and both raise very largely the same questions of principle. Is it possible that we might have a discussion first on the principles, or is it necessary that we should very frequently, as I am afraid otherwise will happen, have speeches reproducing the same arguments on both Bills?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I think there is a considerable amount in the hon. Member's contention. There are, of course, differences between the Bills, as there are differences between Ilford and Luton, but nevertheless the general principles would be the same in both cases. I am not sure whether it would be convenient for the House if we took the general Debate on the principles and then considered the Bills formally. As far as I have any status in the matter, have no objection to that.

Dr. Hill: I agree that there is much which is common to the two Bills, but at the same time, as the Minister suggests, there is a field of difference. While it may be useful to have the one common discussion on points of principle, I suggest that that should not exclude a brief discussion, not covering the same ground, on the Luton Bill as such.

Mr. Speaker: If I may say so, that would appear to me to be a commonsense way of looking at the matter. Apparently there is a general principle involved in both Bills. There will, of course, be details applicable to each separate Bill. We can have the main discussion on the first Bill and, if the House agrees, on the second Bill we can discuss any details which may be left over and which are local.

Lieut.-Colonel Lockwood: I take it, Mr. Speaker, that that will not prevent anybody who is speaking, from

raising at any time any point which may be material to one of the Bills. It will be very difficult to discuss these matters unless we can bring forward any arguments which we possess and any particular points which may probably be incidental only to Luton or to Ilford.

Mr. Speaker: I think we can adjust that. Each Bill must be put separately and we must trust to the common sense of hon. Members. I think those points can be met.

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: (Ilford, North): The Ilford Bill raises a question of general principle which is common to both Bills. but it also raises certain questions of detail which are not the same as those for the Luton Bill. I understand that your Ruling is that we may discuss the first Bill, both on the general question of principle and on matters of detail which particularly affect the Ilford Bill. and that we shall then confine the discus. sion on the Luton Bill to the immediate circumstances and details of that Bill.

Mr. Speaker: Yes. Of course, I am in the hands of the House on this matter and if, when we are discussing the second Bill, hon. Members want to go over the ground again, I cannot very well rule them out of Order, but I think the common sense of the House will make the position quite clear.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: This Bill has been promoted by the Ilford Borough Council for one purpose only to advance the status of the Borough of Ilford to that of a county borough. We are not asking that there shall be any extension of our boundaries. The Bill does not seek that. We have no aggressive ambitions to acquire the territory from our neighbours. All we ask is that we shall be masters in our own home.
Judged by any standard by which matters of this nature are normally judged, the claim of Ilford to be made a county borough is overwhelming and unanswerable. The population of the borough is 185,000—more than twice the present statutory minimum population for a county borough. Of the 83 county boroughs in England and Wales, only 17 have a population greater than Ilford In fact, only 19 county boroughs have a higher rateable value. Of the administrative counties in England and Wales


only 23 have a greater population than the Borough of Ilford. The borough is, in fact, one of the major units of local government in this country, judged by any normal standard of population or financial resources.
Yet Ilford is still a non-county borough with the responsibility for many of its major services—for education, for planning, for personal health services—vested in a county authority which is still largely rural in its outlook, and whose centre of administration is the county town more than 20 miles away from Ilford. In fact, Ilford is one of the anomalies which our local government system has produced. I do not propose to dwell for long on this aspect of the matter, partly because, apart from other considerations, the case of Ilford for county borough powers is really unanswerable; and partly because my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. A. E. Cooper), will, if he is able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, deal with these matters much more effectively than I can. He has for many years been a member of the local authority and at present he is the leader of the council. He will be able to speak with much more intimate knowledge than that which I possess of the inconvenience, expense and delay which is involved in the administration of the major services of the borough as a result of its present status.
This is a Bill to which the House might be expected, in normal circumstances, to give an unchallenged Second Reading; I turn now to the reasons why it will be opposed tonight. I understand that we have to anticipate opposition from two quarters. First, some of my hon. Friends representing different parts of the County of Essex, and I believe some of my hon. Friends who represent other counties, have been instigated to oppose this Bill. So far as concerns my hon. Friends who represent the County of Essex, all that I wish to say to them is this. Ilford has no quarrel with the County of Essex; all that we desire to do is to bid it a grateful and affectionate but final farewell; we consider we have reached a stage when we can manage our own affairs.
There are two other observations that I desire to address to my hon. Friends who are going to express the point of view of county councils. First, I suggest to

them that questions of the sort which they desire to raise upon this Bill—about the convenience or otherwise of county administration, the effect upon county finances, and so forth—cannot conveniently be discussed upon the Second Reading of a Private Bill. They are questions which are more suited for decision by a Committee upstairs. And that is all that we are asking.
If the county councils feel that they have a case against this Bill then a committee of this House, considering the matter with the advantage of having advisers on both sides and expert witnesses, is a much more appropriate tribunal to determine these matters; and they can be determined better there than on Second Reading of the Bill in this House. Secondly, I want to put this question to my hon. Friends. Is it not time that this sort of antagonism between different classes of local authorities was brought to an end? It is precisely this sort of thing that has done so much to bring local authorities into discredit.
Here is a case where some change must obviously eventually come. If this condition of things in this part of the county, which everybody admits is certainly not conducive to the efficient administration of the services upon which the welfare of our population so much depends, if this state of affairs, which everybody concedes must eventually be changed, must be prolonged for a further unnecessary period, what advantage will be gained?
That is, as I say, not the only quarter from which we have to anticipate that we have to meet opposition. I understand that the Minister of Health, whom I see in his place, ready to fall upon me, is going to advise the House to oppose this Bill. I am glad to say that I understand we are to have a free vote. I am not going to anticipate anything that the right hon. Gentleman is going to say. He would be a bold Member of this House who attempted to anticipate anything that the right hon. Gentleman is likely to say.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Even his own Cabinet.

Mr. Hutchinson: I want to say certain things to the House upon which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman, when his turn comes to speak, will feel tempted to comment. The first thing is this. This is not the first occasion upon which the


Ilford Borough Council has attempted to secure county borough status. Thirteen years ago, when I was first honoured to represent the borough in this House, the whole matter was under active consideration, and a Bill would undoubtedly have been presented to Parliament but that the war intervened, and for the time being Ilford Borough Council was concerned with other matters, some of them of a very tragic character.
Then in 1944 the council took up the matter again, and a Bill, identical in its purposes to the present Bill, was then promoted in Parliament. The next thing that happened was that, before the Bill had made any progress, the Government of that day announced that the Boundary Commission was to be set up. Clearly the Boundary Commission provided a method of arriving at a solution of Ilford's difficulties, and accordingly, upon an assurance which was given to us by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor that special priority would be accorded to Ilford's proposal, the Bill was withdrawn. That was followed by an exhaustive inquiry by the Boundary Commissioners, and it was, in fact, one of the first inquiries which they undertook. We make no complaint that we were not accorded special priority in the hearing of our claim, but not unnaturally we assumed that the priority in opportunity to state our case would eventually lead to some action. In fact, it has produced no result, and now the right hon. Gentleman has swept the Boundary Commission away altogether, and we are no nearer a result than we were before. In fact, we are back again at precisely the point from which we started in 1939.
The right hon. Gentleman has not only destroyed the Boundary Commission: he has at the same time restored to the local authorities the powers which they previously enjoyed to seek solution of their troubles by their own action by promoting Private Bills in Parliament, such as the Bill which the House is considering now. Now, I understand that, having restored to the local authorities their power to promote Bills and to find a solution on their own of their difficulties, the right hon. Gentleman is going to advise the House to reject this Bill—and also, I understand, to reject the Luton Bill which is to follow.
What are the local authorities to do in those circumstances? The right hon. Gentleman is really acting very unreasonably in this matter. During the Debate on the Bill to dissolve the Boundary Commission, he spoke of proposals for the general reorganisation of local government, and went as far as saying that the Government had those proposals in mind. His Parliamentary Secretary said in the same Debate that a review of these proposals was then taking place. So far, there has been no indication of what those proposals are likely to be, and —perhaps even more important—there has been no indication of when those proposals are likely to be made public. There is no indication in the Gracious Speech that these proposals which the Government had in mind in the last Parliament are to be the subject of legislation in this Parliament. They are evidently not going to materialise in the present Session.
Everybody knows that there is no more controversial topic than the re-organisation of local government. It has been a subject of controversy ever since I had anything to do with it, and for a very long time before that. The Government have declared their intention in the present Parliament of avoiding, so far as possible, controversial legislation, and I suggest that it is most unlikely that the Government's proposals will make their appearance at any time in the present Parliament. After all, as we all know, this Parliament is very closely balanced, and I can well understand that any Government would refrain, so far as possible, from introducing legislation on a topic so highly controversial and explosive as the re-organisation of local government is likely to prove.
What, then, are the local authorities to do? Are they to wait indefinitely, until the Parliamentary situation changes, until some Government at some future time finds itself in a strong enough position to make proposals? If that is the proposal the Minister intends to put to the House, then I suggest that the time has come when a Bill of this sort ought to be given at least a Second Reading. If local authorities who feel that they can make a case to a Committee are deprived of the opportunity of doing so, and are to be invited to wait for an indefinite and uncertain period until the materialisation of some proposals, the character of which


is at present unknown to us all—except, I suppose, the Minister and his colleagues on the Government Front Bench—they will have to wait a very long time. In the meantime, the administration of the servives for which they and other authorities are responsible will necessarily deteriorate.
Surely in a case of this nature, where there is a local authority whose claims for an alteration of status are beyond challenge judged by any—

Mr. Bevan: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hutchinson: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I am sure he would not disagree with the view that an authority with a population approaching 200,000, larger than many of the administrative counties in the country, was a suitable subject for county borough status. If authorities in this class are to be expected to wait, they may have to wait a very long time. In cases of this character, where the authority has, as I submit, outstanding claims for special consideration, we ought now to give this Bill a Second Reading and allow it to go to the Committee upstairs.
There is one other observation which I desire to make, and I should like the Minister's attention because I want to make this observation particularly to him. Can the right hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member suppose that, whatever proposals may eventually be made for the reorganisation of local government, some greater measure of autonomy is not likely to be given to local government units possessing the size and resources of places like Ilford and Luton? Why should the granting of county borough status cut across any proposals which are likely to be made hereafter? No one has ever suggested that places of the status and financial strength of these two towns will have reduced powers under any set of proposals.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that during the last 10 years innumerable sets of proposals have been made by innumerable people and bodies. I think I am familiar with most of the proposals, as I have no doubt he is, but I cannot recall any set of proposals in which it was suggested that local government units of this size were to receive reduced powers. I suggest to him that it may well

be that to preserve the status quo will cut across the eventual reorganisation of local government much more completely than the changes this Bill proposes to make. It may well be that if services such as the local health service, planning and education are allowed to settle down on a basis of administration by the county council, the result will be that new proposals, when they are eventually brought forward, will cut across the existing and established methods of administration much more completely than if a greater measure of local autonomy were given now to those places to whom it will ultimately clearly have to be given.
In conclusion, I hope the House will give Ilford, and later on Luton, at least an opportunity to make their case before a Committee upstairs. If we have not got a case, the Committee will turn us down. But at least give us an opportunity, by giving this Bill a Second Reading, of going upstairs to make a case for county borough powers. Let us at least have a run for our money.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Pargiter: I oppose the Second Reading of this Bill not because I have any ill-feeling toward Ilford or Luton, but upon the general principles accepted by the House for the withdrawal of the Boundary Commission Act. I do so because it was generally accepted at that time, as will be within the recollection of us all, that tile Boundary Commission reported that they were unable to fully carry out their duties or to fulfil their real terms of reference as they were then drawn. In other words, they could not materially alter the structure of local Government satisfactorily under the then terms of reference. On those grounds, very largely, it was withdrawn.
It will also be remembered that the 1947 Report of the Boundary Commission set out to deal with a number of difficulties with which the Commission were faced. There is no clear political division in this matter in which various vested interests are represented in the form of varying types of local Government units. It is also true that the associations of local authorities have been unable themselves up-to-date, at any rate, to resolve this problem of what is a reasonable structure of local Government,


having regard to the complexities of the services which it has to render. So it is no easy problem.
I submit that it will not be made any easier by taking one or two authorities out of the context of the general problem, as it were, and then endeavouring to settle it. In my submission, it will settle nothing but merely create further difficulties. It must be borne in mind that various Acts of Parliament have been passed which influenced this matter. One, a Coalition Measure, was the Education Act, followed by the Health Act and the Fire Brigade Act which returned the fire brigades to the local authorities. They set to some extent a new pattern.
I do not want to argue that it is necessarily the right pattern, but it is at least a pattern, and if someone were to punch a few more holes in that particular pattern that would not help us at all. I feel that we must, at this stage, adhere to the decision generally accepted by the House on the statement of the Minister that there should be no major changes in the structure of local government until such time as there is an opportunity for full review of its whole structure. I believe that the House will adhere to the decision of the Government notwithstanding the change in the structure of the House.
This particular attempt may be the forerunner of many more. Not only can Ilford and Luton argue their cases. I can mention within my own county of Middlesex ten authorities out of 26 with considerably more than 100,000 population who could come here and justifiably say, " Right, Parliament approves the principles of major changes in the structure of local government; we will promote our cases." In the case of two urban districts, Harrow has a population in excess of 200,000 and Enfield over 100,000 apart from the boroughs such as Ealing, Willesden, Tottenham and many others. In fact, the Government recognised what might possibly happen and specifically excluded Middlesex from the consideration of the Boundary Commission so far as the county borough status was concerned.
That safeguard is gone, and one can well imagine what may happen if these Bills receive the assent of the House. I am certain that the problem of local government has to be tackled as a whole. I

am associated with the County Council's Association, and I know that they are anxious—extremely anxious—to get the local authority associations together again in an endeavour to provide a solution. At least they appreciate that unless a solution is found by the associations themselves a Government of some kind is going to find a solution, and that as usually happens, it will be one that is unpopular with all of them. So there is a real urgency, I know, behind the meetings of at least some of the associations that they should have an opportunity to get together again to give some further consideration to trying to resolve their difficulties. I hope in the meantime we shall not go further with regard to the promotion of, or permitting the promotion of Bills which will create a further problem.
Let us have regard to one or two of the things that this means. It is easy to talk about a local authority as being this or that, but in many cases it has attained its position as a result of drawing on the surrounding countryside. It has some responsibility for the surrounding countryside, and I think that must be recognised. We cannot take a great chunk out of an existing county which has built up an administrative structure to provide for the whole of it and then expect that it will be able to carry on, probably with one of the largest areas of rateable value taken away from it.
That is the problem with which the Boundary Commission were faced and a problem with which the Government are faced. The House will be faced ultimately with trying to sort out what is the proper balance and how a community can be divided so that democracy can be maintained and the resources of local Government maintained to reasonably meet the services which it has to provide. This will not be resolved by anything that is done in the way of promoting Bills for county borough status.
I feel very strongly about this matter and I am not saying this purely from a point of view of a county council. I have been a member of a borough council and a county council, and I see many faults in the structure of county administration and in many other types of municipal administration The perfect system has not yet been devised. It will be long before it is. I hope that we shall consider


this whole problem and we shall not on this occasion, which will be the first time, depart from the decision which the House gave that there should be no major changes in the structure of local Government until such time as it is possible to consider the whole structure.

7.38 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Lockwood: I feel that it is my duty to say something on this matter because I have rather divided loyalties as a representative of the Essex County Council and of a constituency which borders upon Ilford. I would hesitate to say anything detrimental about Ilford because I live in a village not many miles from it. I am certain that everyone sympathises with what those who are promoting this Bill are doing, and we appreciate the facts put forward in support of it.
It is not my intention to deal with a specific point, but to make one or two general observations. It seems to me that this Bill is premature because, apparently, the Government are at some time, we do not know when, going to consider the structure and status of local Government, and there is no doubt that it would be advisable to deal with the county of Essex as a whole. The result of this Debate may be that the Government will come along and say that they have made up their minds, which is unlikely, and that it is their intention to let us know the date when they can give us the results of their deliberations.
I know that a Government Departmental committee is sitting on this question of London government. I am sorry to have to agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but I think he might have been right when he said that if the deliberations of that committee were to be complete, they would have to take into consideration the question of greater London.

Mr. Hutchinson: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say to which committee he is referring? There was a body, the Boundary Commission, but I understand that the right hon. Gentleman brought it to an end.

Lieut.-Colonel Lockwood: I may be wrong in my facts, but I understood that there was a Departmental Committee inquiring into the question of London

government. I was certainly under the impression that that was so, but if I am wrong I will withdraw it.
It has been suggested that if the Ilford Corporation Bill were to go through and Ilford were to get the county status they seek, it might make it easier for others to get county status. It may well be that Romford in due course may come forward and ask for county status, and no doubt the facts and arguments which can be put forward will be stronger than in the case of Ilford. The point is that I do not believe the fact that Ilford has been given county status will help Rom-ford at all. It is essential that the County of Essex should be treated as a whole, and the granting of county status to Ilford would be prejudicial to any other borough that might seek these powers. It is for this reason, although I desire to do everything I can to help in the matter, because the granting of county status to Ilford will not help Romford in any future efforts which I hope she will make to obtain county status, that I am unable to support this Bill.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. MacColl: I wish to make it clear that I am in no way connected with the County of Essex, or with the Borough of Ilford. I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) made it clear that what we are discussing is not a private difference between Essex and Ilford but a matter which affects the whole of the London region. As a solution to the problems of the London region is essential to the welfare of the country, this is a matter of national importance. The hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Hutchinson) alluded to the Boundary Commission and mentioned that it had been dissolved. The Boundary Commission does not help him at all, because it made it quite clear that the problems of the London region must be considered apart from the general problems of local government reform.
A committee under the chairmanship of the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) dealt with the problem of London planning administration. I think it was in answer to the hon. Member for Ilford, North, that the Minister of Town and Country Planning stated he was consulting the London local


authorities on the future organisation of planning in the London region. It seems to me quite clear that in the middle of discussions of this kind it would have the most deplorable repercussions to set up a new planning authority in the region.
I hope that the House will not give this Bill a Second Reading. It must inevitably open the door to many other applications of a similar kind. It must scramble the eggs from the point of view of any properly worked out solution for the problems of London government, which are unique and cannot be considered in the same way as the problems of the rest of the country. I am not a member of any county council, and I am therefore not advancing their point of view; nor am I a member of an all-purposes authority. I am merely saying that the solution to London government must be different, and certainly we cannot help by establishing what are bound to become isolated pockets of resistance to any properly worked out scheme.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Members will agree that this is an extremely interesting Debate. It is a good thing that consideration of great issues of national importance should be abruptly interrupted at seven o'clock to deal with more local problems, because it is upon good government by local administrations that our national strength eventually depends. We on this side have watched the disappearance in the last few years of many of the powers held by local authorities, losses which we consider to be a national disadvantage. Tonight, the issues we are considering cut right across party considerations. I must immediately confess a personal interest in this matter, because I am speaking not as a representative of the Opposition Front Bench but as one of the county members for Bedfordshire, whose affairs are deeply involved with the affairs of the big town of Luton.
As I have said, this is not a party matter. I find myself in agreement with the remarks of the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) and at complete variance with the views expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Hutchinson), whose return to the House is welcomed by most disinterested Members on both sides; with

the views that I understand are held by his colleague, the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South (Squadron-Leader A. E. Cooper); and with the views I know to be held by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Dr. Hill), whose victory in that division was certainly one of the high water marks of the last General Election. No one can say, therefore, that in this matter we are following traditional party lines; nor can it be said that in opposing Bills of this kind we are casting any reflection on the great towns which have quite properly invoked the only machinery open to them at the moment and brought their claims forward in the House of Commons.
I know something about Ilford and its great history, and a good deal more about Luton. I know that without the town of Luton the County of Bedford would suffer severely, although it is also true to say that Luton would suffer very badly without the County of Bedford—it is the marriage of town and country in counties such as mine which have led to our health and prosperity. I look to the future of Luton, in partnership with the County of Bedford, adding increased honour to its already honourable past.
There are one or two general considerations which I should like to advance to the House. Members on this side of the House and some on the other side will deplore the ending of the Boundary Commission with all the possibilities of useful work that lay before it. I am glad to get an approving nod from the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood), because I am about to quote his distinguished father the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood). whose views on this matter most of us agree with. The view he expressed some five years ago was quoted only last year in this House—that in any changes of this kind discussions should best take place outside Parliament and outside Private Bill Committees.
Many of us also regret that the Government, having created a void—I do not think the Minister of Health would deny that—have done nothing whatever to fill it. This is one of those unusual occasions in which I find myself in agreement with the Minister of Health. I would not, therefore, in any way sharpen the


differences that might arise on other occasions. Had the problem arisen when we on this side were the Government of the day with the Minister of Health leading the Opposition, he might again use words he used on 9th November last, that the failure of this side to express a view was an attempt to conceal the poverty of the party about local government problems in general. We are entitled to say that much of the difficulties confronting counties like mine and towns like Luton and Ilford spring from the fact that the Government, having created a void. have done nothing whatever to fill it.
We are back again in the situation which was sketched in the Coalition White Paper in 1945, when reference was made to the problems of counties like Essex and Bedfordshire. which may be called on to reorganise local government units within their counties while, as here, they are under the immediate threat of having the county itself dismembered or at best with no assurance whatever that the county would remain intact. This is a very great problem and one with which we are concerned in both of the counties whose affairs are now being considered.
The next point I should like to make is that the Government alone are in a position to take action in this matter. The Opposition obviously cannot initiate legislation. We do not know all the facts. We do not know all the facts in the international sphere and there are a great many things we do not know even in the domestic sphere. [HON. MEMBERS: " Hear, hear."] It is not through lack of intelligence, but because a great many things, which to national profit could be shared, are not shared between the parties. The Government have given us certain definite asurances of what their intentions are, and we are entitled to pay some regard to those assurances, because, whatever our views may be about the wisdom of Government action, definite statements by Ministers that they intend to do something about something presumably means something.
Though we have had a number of illusions shattered in the past, I still remain hopeful that in this field anyhow they may shortly have some proposals to offer to the House. The right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health have given certain definite statements to the House.
Last November the Parliamentary Secretary warned large authorities not to apply for county borough status, and he used these words:
… since obviously any changes might well have to be undone, if indeed, they could take effect within the time available, when the Government come to announce their proposals." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November. 1949; Vol. 469, c. 410.]

Dr. Hill: Would my hon. Friend be good enough to read also the words earlier in that paragraph, which contemplate changes for a few authorities?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am coming to that, but I do not see why I should be put off making my own speech and advancing my points in my own sequences, which will be better than the way in which the right hon. Gentleman put them. On the same day the Parliamentary Secretary also assured us that if the minimum figure for county borough status was reduced from 100,000 to 75,000 the representatives of the boroughs would not, in fact, promote Bills while the Government review was under way. It was because of that statement that a number of hon. Members gave their support to the Government's proposals, and we know quite definitely that because of that assurance the Government reduced the minimum number of the towns that could apply for this status.
Now we understood that representatives of the boroughs in large part were in favour of a reduction of the minimum figure, because they feared that the figure of 100,000 might otherwise become the standard, which would be followed in the general plan that the Government are known to have in contemplation. A week later we understood from the right hon. Gentleman himself that representatives of various—he did not say all—of the boroughs had assured him that in the meantime they would not appeal to Parliament for any alteration.
This may be where I can deal with a point which the hon. Member for Luton has in mind. The Government did say that if it were an urgent case and it were put forward, they would give facilities for it, but in all our Parliamentary discussions the only situation that was held to be an urgent situation was—and I am speaking subject to correction but I think I am right—the need to get on with housing schemes on land which might not be


within the local authority's control. The Minister added—and he was quite right to do so, for even in the County of Bedford we have a great housing problem —that he would give facilities in those cases. I should like to point out in this particular connection that when the Boundary Commission suggested that some 700 acres to the north of Luton, on which housing development had started and was needed, should be added to the territory of the local authority, the county council very gladly agreed to that and it might have been that that would have happened without any recourse to Parliament at all.

Mr. Hutchinson: The hon. Gentleman has spoken about an undertaking given by certain boroughs. He does not suggest that either of the two boroughs under discussion tonight were parties to that?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, certainly not. I know the view of many of my friends in Luton, and they were not a party at any time to that agreement, but they agree that the local authorities' association, to which they belong, has from time to time spoken, not absolutely or precisely on their behalf but in general, giving the view of most of the local associations. I do not pretend that either Ilford or Luton have in any way agreed to an action behind which they are now going through the action they are taking in the House today. So much for the argument in regard to future Government action.
I should like to reinforce the view already expressed that an application of this kind might lead to many other applications. Indeed, in Bedford many of the changes proposed, not least the coming of the great aeronautical establishment to the outskirts of Bedford, might lead to a large increase of the town of Bedford itself, which, if the same principle were followed, would leave a large area in the county district without any adequate support or help. The thought that this may be inevitable in the long run, though I deny it, ought not to happen through Bills introduced into the House of Commons for purely local reasons, but ought to be the unwelcomed consequence of national legislation.
I cannot accept the argument of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Hutchinson) that we

should give a Second Reading to the Bill in order that the point at issue can be hammered out in Committee. He cannot pose as a new Member of this House, although he has just returned to it. He had a long and distinguished history in the House of Commons before, and I know that he will have a long and distinguished career here in the years that lie ahead. He knows as well as I do that the Second Reading is the stage for considering the general principles and policy of a Measure. If we let these Bills have a Second Reading we should be regarded as having accepted the view that a prima facie case had been made out for them, and the Committee would then be restricted in their scrutiny of the Bills.
I am speaking entirely for myself when I say that we deny that a prima facie case has been made out. The Boundary Commission looked thoroughly at the situation in Luton and thought that the best status for that distinguished town was that of a new county borough, with wide powers within the county. The county council would have welcomed such a solution, with which the ever-growing town of Luton and the great county of Bedford might have faced the future confident of success. No prima facie case whatever has been made out for recommending to this House a solution different from that which the Boundary Commission recommended.

Mr. Messer: Will the hon. Gentleman point out that it was not the present county borough status?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sorry if I did not make that quite plain. The proposal of the Boundary Commission was an intermediate status but one which might well have met the needs of the county authority and of the urban authority as well.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman does not point out in his statement that the Boundary Commission did not, in fact, have the power to do it because they had been denied the power by the Government which set them up

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As many of the colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman were in the Government which set up that Boundary Commission—for it was a Coalition Government—perhaps he will also address his strictures to them in


the present Cabinet. Nor can it be said that the towns engaged in the present controversy have been treated unjustly by the county authorities. I would not be so bold as to speak of the situation in Essex, but I do know something about the county ot Bedford. I know that if at any time the borough of Luton had not had adequate representation on the county council, very deep and sympathetic consideration would have been given to their requests for greater representation but I know that, when these proposals were brought before that county, of the 83 who were present —many of whom came from Luton-80 of them voted against the proposals.
The hon. Member for Southall referred to urban authorities taking large chunks of adjoining rural territory and adding them to their townships and then getting county borough status and taking those rural districts out of the county area. It would not be fair to say that that is exactly what has happened in the case of Luton and Bedford, but it would be fair to say that in the last 24 years the acreage of the town of Luton, with the full consent of the County of Bedford, has increased two and a half times. Whereas, just before I became Member for Mid-Bedfordshire, the acreage was some 3,000, it is now nearly 9,000. This large increase in acreage has taken place with the full approval of the County of Bedford in the confident belief that their destinies were involved together.
Finally, the county authorities in Bedford—I imagine this may be equally true of Essex—have always tried to give proper representation to the citizens of the town engaged in county administration. Certainly, in Bedford over the last 30 years, the chairmanship of the majority of the main county committees have been held by distinguished citizens from Luton. Today the education committee, the highways committee and the fire service committee, to name only three, are held by gentlemen from Luton. The chairmanship of the county council as a whole is held also by a distinguished Luton citizen who has had long links with both county administration and with this House itself.
We believe that we have worked out in Bedford a happy blend of town and country life. We are quite prepared to recognise that when a national decision is arrived at we must play our part in

making it work, but we do not believe that we should take this action in advance of a national agreement. Therefore, I very much hope that my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen on the other side will oppose the Second Reading of these Bills

8.5 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I now state the Government's attitude towards these two Bills. I had been waiting, because I thought that the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) was going to rise to his feet to take part in this general discussion. I gather that he proposes to hold himself until the Luton Bill is before the House. I make no quarrel about that, but I am bound in my statement to make reference to both Ilford and Luton.

The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): could not forbear from putting the responsibility for his embarrassment upon the Government. He finds it hard to oppose some of his hon. Friends, so in order to escape from the dilemma he makes the Government the whipping boy. It would have been much better if he had approached the whole matter in an entirely non-party way. I thought as he was speaking that he was doing a very great disservice to his own constituency. If I surrendered to my natural belligerency I should feel inclined to advise the House not to help him to protect his constituents against the loss of rateable value. Having more loyalty to the citizens of Luton than the hon. Gentleman himself appears to have, I do not propose to make them the victims of a party controversy in this House.
I will take another feature of the hon. Gentleman's speech. It has now become characteristic of practically every speech we hear from the Opposition Front Bench that they are unable to tell the House or the country what their policy would be because they do not know all the facts. If there was one subject—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: May I ask this: If the right bon. Gentleman had known all the facts about the opening of the second front in the war, would he have made some of the speeches that he did?

Mr. Bevan: This is what the hon. Gentleman calls discussing a Private Bill in a non-party fashion. The trouble


with him is that his eruptive irresponsibility continually interferes with his duty to his constituents. I hope they will note it. If not, we shall have to point it out to them. No one knows any more about the facts of local government whether they are inside the Government or outside the Government. What is there secret about local government? Does the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that he is unable to give the benefit of his advice about how local government should be organised because he does not know the facts about it? I will send him a little booklet. Does he not know the function of rural, parish, county borough, non-county borough and county council authorities?
One would think that one had to send an expedition to find out what was happening in this secret territory that he knows nothing about. It really was an awful faux pas, was it not, seriously to suggest that the facts are not available? It was complete nonsense. There is not a single statistical fact about local government which is not accessible to every citizen in Great Britain—the functions, boundaries, finances, details of administration and everything like that. It really was not good enough. It was below even his form to suggest that they are unable to give us the benefit of their advice because they do not know what the facts about local authorities are. It is a curious way in which they intend to conduct democracy in this country. They say, " We do not know what the facts are, but if you send us in we will do something about them. What we will do we will tell you when we get there." Do not let us have that again.
The hon. Member was also quite wrong in his reference to the Boundary Commission. He suggested that this so-called vacuum, this merely restoring the status to where it was for many years, was because we had abolished the Boundary Commission. He himself has just admitted that the Boundary Commission did not even have the power under the Act setting them up to create a new county borough of Luton. So the abolition of the Boundary Commission has created no vacuum because they could not have solved the Luton problem. It was not in their powers. The reason why the Boundary Commission was abolished

by this House was because the Boundary Commission said that the powers setting it up were inadequate to carry out the reorganisation which it thought necessary. We know very well, and must again put it on record, that this House of Commons is not going to give any nonelected body the right to determine all the functions and boundaries of local government. Not even the most fanatical supporters of Boundary Commissions would entrust the status of elected bodies to the ipse dixit of non-elected persons. That disposes of the other part of the speech of the hon. Member.
Now we come to the position of Ilford. The position was that a Commission was established under Lord Reading for the purpose of bringing about a re-allocation of functions between the county council and Metropolitan Boroughs. It was a hopeless failure. The county and municipal boroughs would not give evidence before it. It collapsed. It was not so much done to death by me; it was dead and buried before. That was not because the Commission did not consist of exceedingly able men. They were very able men, who did their best to do an impossible job. But it was because it became apparent to everyone, as it should have been apparent from the beginning, that we cannot deal with the Greater London local government problem merely by discussing the relationship between the county council and Metropolitan Boroughs. The conurbation is much vaster than that and we have to consider the matter as a whole.
I must advise the House to vote against the Second Reading of these two Bills. I must do so on a number of grounds, which have already been stated. In the first place, I must say at once that the Government are not unsympathetic to the aspirations lying behind these Bills. The local authorities concerned are large, efficient, and reasonably ambitious. Therefore, we are not advising the House to reject these two Bills on the ground that we do not think they could carry out county council duties properly. That is not the ground at all. We know they are very good, independent, units of local government.
The reason we advise the House to reject these two Bills at present is because of the fact, as has been stated on more than one occasion, that we do not con


sider that any major change should take place in the status of local authorities piecemeal. We believe it is desirable that local government should be considered as a whole and that it would be unfortunate in the extreme if it were possible for particular local authorities to be able to obtain from the House of Commons a Statute which made major changes in their status. Therefore, we consider that it would be not only undesirable, but unfortunate in the extreme, if these two Bills got a Second Reading because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) pointed out, Ilford does not stand by itself. There are very large numbers of local authorities in London with claims analogous to those of Ilford. It is not enough to say that Ilford has a population of 180,000. That is not enough by itself. Would 150,000 be too few? If we granted county borough status for a population of 180,000 and said that it was given because there was a population of 180,000, what would be done in the case of Luton, which has a population of only 110,000?
I do not want to cause division between the two aspirants for county borough status, but I am certain that the hon. Member for Luton would quarrel with the figure of 180,000 being sacrosanct because it would leave his borough out in the cold. No one has yet decided what the figure should be. We cannot say there is any sacrosanctity about any particular figure, and therefore we cannot agree that, because Ilford has a population of 180,000, that by itself is the reason why Ilford should be given county borough status. We would not be able to resist a long series of Bills coming from many parts of London. We would have no ground at all on which to stand. One after another would come forward and we would not be able to stand on the figure of 180,000, but would have to come down to 140,000 or 100,000—there is no stopping anywhere.

Squadron-Leader A. E. Cooper: The right hon. Gentleman said there is no figure, but surely it is within the knowledge of the House that the Government have already fixed the figure of 75,000, and above, at which local authorities can make application?

Mr. Bevan: The hon. and gallant Member makes a mistake there. All we

have said is that there is a minimum figure, but we have not said that there is any sacrosanctity about it. On the contrary, when I put in the figure of 75,000 as against 100,000, before putting it in I extracted from them a promise mat they would not promote Bills because of that fact. The reason I put it in was because they had the fear, which I explained to the House at the time, that if we put in the figure it might carry with it the assumption that in any plans the Government were making that particular figure would be regarded as sacrosanct. That was the only reason why it was done. There would be no reason at all why the House should not yield to a whole series of applications of this sort if we granted this one. That is in regal to Ilford. Apart from minor arguments that could be advanced, it would be rather foolish to give planning powers to one authority in the middle of a large conurbation.
When we come to Luton, the situation is even worse, because to extract Luton from the County of Bedfordshire would mean that the county would not be viable as a local government unit. I have looked at this very carefully. Even after making allowance for the rate equalisation grant, the position of Bedford would still be unfortunate. I do not want to-weary the House with the figures, but it is obvious that we must consider not only the aspirations of Luton but also the life of Bedfordshire. Unless we are prepared, as we are not prepared at the moment, with major proposals for the rescue of Bedfordshire, we would not be entitled to condemn Bedfordshire to a tepid life in order to satisfy the legitimate aspirations of Luton.
We have here two examples of the kind of change that ought not to take place piecemeal, one in the middle of a vast conurbation whose claims must be considered as a whole, and the other an urban population with a large rural county, These are classic illustrations of the unwisdom of putting your hand upon one piece of local government without considering the repercussions, not only on the theory, but on the practice of local government as a whole.
A further reason which must weigh with me in the matter is that other local authorities which have presented Bills have accepted the advice of the Govern


ment and have confined their Bills to what we said would be granted, extensions of their boundaries, in order to take in land for building and ancillary purposes. It would be unfair to those other authorities, which had accepted the advice given within the full knowledge of the House, to give to Luton and to Ilford what other authorities have restrained themselves from asking. Therefore, I suggest that it is not quite right in these circumstances for these two authorities to " jump the gun " in this way.
Then it has been suggested that it would be a good thing if this went upstairs so that a Committee could have a look at it. If there is one thing that I can properly say the House must not and ought not to do it is to ask a Committee upstairs to decide a Second Reading principle. That is a matter for the House itself. Then we ought not to encourage expenses, and great expenses, too, for lawyers to argue upstairs a point which ought to be settled by the House. This is not really a matter for lawyers to argue before a Committee; it is a matter for the House itself to settle.
Of course, it is within the province of the House, but I hope it will not be necessary for us, to have a prolonged discussion about this matter, because most of the arguments have already been unfolded. Indeed, I have been compelled to repeat some of them because we are on narrow ground. With regard to the general aspect of the matter, it is perfectly true that I suggested, when the Boundary Commission Bill was before the House, that the Government were giving their minds to the reorganisation of local government. It is clear, however, from the divisions on all sides of the House that there is no common consensus of opinion here as to what the reorganisation of local government should be. The ranks of Tuscany are divided; representatives of the county councils and the urban district councils and the boroughs are on all sides of the House. Therefore, in those circumstances and with the House so closely divided as it is, I do not think there is any immediate prospect of any Minister of Health—unless he is prepared to go into immediate voluntary exile—to bring proposals before the House for the radical reorganisation of local government.
So I am not asking the House—that would be entirely unfair and dishonest—to withdraw or to reject the Second Reading of these two Bills because there is an immediate prospect of presenting proposals for the major reform of local government. I am merely saying that doing it this way would create chaos in local government; having piecemeal alterations here and there would merely cause far more trouble than it would alleviate. At the moment local government is largely viable. In the last Parliament we succeeded in distributing Government grants in such a way as to enable most local authorities to discharge local government functions. Ilford and Luton are not having inefficient services as a consequence of their present position. Local government on the whole is, as it were, ticking over, not as satisfactorily as we would like, but nevertheless there is no urgent, overwhelming reason why we should change it radically at this stage.
Therefore, I hope that the House in its wisdom will reject these two Measures, so that we can look at the whole of local government, when the time is appropriate, in such a fashion as to make the changes necessary to maintain the vitality of local administration.

8.26 p.m.

Captain Soames: Whilst speaking against this Bill, I certainly do not say that the time will never come when any borough should not be granted county borough status in some form or another, but at the same time I say that no section of the community should be permitted to ride roughshod over another and sometimes a larger section, and this is exactly what these two Bills are proposing. They are promoted by borough corporations and are designed solely to meet the needs of those corporations. They do not take into consideration in any way the needs or the requirements of the counties concerned.
I speak with knowledge of the problem where Luton in Bedfordshire, is concerned, though I have no knowledge at all about Ilford in Essex. I submit that no such change of status for a borough as is asked for in this Bill should be brought about before a wide and comprehensive review of the whole situation as it affects the entire country has been


made, as it affects the interests of all concerned and not simply the interests of the borough. At the present time the representatives of the associations of all local authorities are conferring together in an attempt to agree upon joint reform proposals for presentation to the Government. Surely, therefore, it cannot be right for this Bill to go through at the present time, in its present form and with its selfish motives. I must say that these corporations who are promoting Bills for county borough status have certain reasons for uneasiness. The Government found it easy to destroy the machinery of the Boundary Commission which had been set up by the Coalition Government but, as the right hon. Gentleman has just told us, they have not found it easy to set up anything to take its place.
The proposals of the Luton Bill involve issues more momentous and ominous than any other event in the history of Bedfordshire. The effect of the constitution of Luton as a county borough would be to bring about the severence of the largest Bedfordshire community from the rest of the county, and Bedfordshire as a whole would have to face insoluble problems, both administrative and financial, which would bring in their wake the most tragic and dire consequences.

Mr. Daises: The hon. Gentleman said that the present administration had destroyed the Local Government Boundary Commission and put nothing in its place. Can he suggest what should be put in its place?

Captain Soames: I will come to that later. One cannot have a public council with power and authority unless it represents the interests of both the urban and the rural elements. This Bill asks for a withdrawal, complete and uttter and without any qualification, of the largest urban community in the County of Bedford, of which it has 33 per cent. of the population. The withdrawal would have a serious effect on the local administration and, indeed, on its capacity to hold together the county as an individual and in many sense a unique entity.
The Boundary Commission, in its 1947 Report, put forward recommendations which were likely to remove, or at any rate to lessen, the natural conflict which

exists between county councils and county boroughs. These recommendations, as the House knows, dealt not only with the extension of boundaries but also with the creation of what were termed new county boroughs. Luton was one of the boroughs which, if it were given county borough status, would become a new county borough; that is to say, it was to remain within the county, it was to keep representation on the county council, but it was to be autonomous for such services as health and education; but for such services as town and country planning, highways, police and the fire brigade it was to remain within the county administration.
But the Boundary Commission was dissolved, and the repeal of the Local Government Act of 1945 meant that any county borough which was created would not be a new county borough but would be the type of county borough laid down under the Local Government Act of 1888. That is what is being demanded for Luton and for Ilford by these Bills. This is exactly what the Boundary Commission decided was unworkable and had to be avoided at all costs. Are these recommendations made by men of experience, with detailed knowledge of their subjects, to be completely ignored and cast aside? There were certainly many excellent reasons which led the Commission to decide that the form of county which was in existence was unsuitable to present conditions and not conducive to the interests of all concerned.
It would be highly unwise to create a county borough on the old basis which would cause a great deal of disruption, both administratively and financially, for the rest of the counties concerned. The dissolution of the Boundary Commission, as was said by the Minister of Health, who has just left the Chamber, created a vacuum. It is a vacuum which the Government should abhor. It would be very good to follow the precepts of nature from time to time. New machinery should be set up. An hon. Member opposite asked for a solution. The Minister of Health, who has all the facts available to him, says that he does not know, and does not intend to put any suggestion forward. It is asking rather a lot of me to put forward something which the Minister admits that he, in his position, is not capable of putting forward.
New machinery should be set up to find a solution to this admittedly serious problem—a solution which can apply to the country as a whole and which does not bring hardship to the rural areas. The tackling of the problem in a half-hearted piecemeal fashion by the creation of a few county boroughs on a basis which the Boundary Commission reported to be highly unsuitable and against the general interests of the community, would be erroneous, unworthy and unstatesmanlike.

8.35 p.m.

Dr. Hill: I will confine my observations to the general principles underlying these Bills and reserve any remarks which I may have on the gloomy and inaccurate references to the Luton-Bedfordshire position until that particular Bill is before the House.
I will not weary the House by reminding it of the arguments for and against the dissolution of the Boundary Commission, but I would like at the outset to stress one point. It is that, whatever may be said about the general principles accepted by the House, to quote the words of the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter), the fact remains that the original Act restored to local authorities over 75,000 in population the right to apply to this House by Private Bill. I am sorry that the Minister of Health is not now in his place. He suggested that the two authorities now coming to the House have " jumped the gun." They were not a party to any informal agreement not to proceed by the method of Private Bill; they were not invited to offer any assurance on the point, and they are coming to this House exercising their legal rights and using the one remaining channel available to them.
I disagree with much that has been said on this side of the House. I disagree that a void has been left, though I will not go into any details of physics or physiology about what that may mean. What has been left is the system of application by Private Bill, and Luton and Ilford are fully entitled to proceed by the use of that method. Secondly, the existence of a figure, be it 75,000 or 100,000, below which local authorities are precluded from using the method of the Private Bill, presents the position that it

is a reasonable presumption that those whose populations are in excess of that figure are fully entitled to come to this House for consideration of their case by Private Bill.
In summary, the Minister says—and I hope I do him no injustice—that he opposes the use of this method, that he will not deal with local government in a piecemeal fashion, and, thirdly and associated with the second point, they should wait for a comprehensive plan for local government reform. I think that fairly states his position on the general principles. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to suggest that, on that general principle, the cases of Luton and Ilford were good, but his attitude tonight means that no authority, whatever its population, will succeed by the method of Private Bill in achieving promotion of status.
The Act dissolving the Boundary Commission might just as well have contained no figure at all, but a general prohibition on all local authorities, if the Minister's attitude as expressed tonight be accepted. The very fact that there were discussions about the figure and that the Minister modified the figure, despite his statement tonight that no sanctity attached to it, at least showed that the figure had some significance. One wonders what would have been the attitude of the House if the dissolution Bill had, in fact, contained a general prohibition which would have covered major extensions of boundaries as well as promotions of status.
The Minister's attitude tonight is one of concern to all kinds of local authorities and to both sides of the House, and for that reason I regret the minor acerbities which stimulated the Minister to some of his rhetorical flourishes. The effect of that attitude is to fix the present position until a comprehensive scheme of reform is available. It is a freezing of the local government position, and, with the exception of minor local boundary changes, to freeze it, as I shall show in a moment, indefinitely. The Minister says it is. wrong to act now. His second argument is that to yield to Luton and Ilford would mean that they would be uncomfortable friends in the future. His third argument —that we must await local government reform on a comprehensive scale—suggests a comparison with the parson who, declined to improve the status of a couple


by marrying them, first because there was a crack in the font, and secondly because he had asked for some comprehensive plans from an architect for the reconstruction of his church, meanwhile praying secretly, or not so secretly, that he would be called to another benefice before the plans were available.

Mr. Harrison: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that if this supposed minister agreed to marry one couple and refused to marry 22 similarly placed couples, it would be most unfair?

Dr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman is leading me into a speculative field infinitely beyond me. But the position then is—when may this House expect to have presented to it some comprehensive plans for local government reform'? The Minister stated that he hoped that the publication of the reports of the Boundary Commission would have lead the associations of local authorities to agree on something, but he knows perfectly well, as do hon. Members, how hopeless is such an expectation. It is clearly not coming from him during this Parliament. It might be possible to argue that one would need a Parliament with a substantial majority on one side or the other, and that the Minister would need to introduce his proposals early in that Parliament in the hope that they would be forgotten in the succeeding few years. But I do not know; others are better able to pronounce on it, and others are also better able to pronounce on the prospects of getting that sort of Government in the foreseeable future. Even if such a change occurs one way or the other, are we really sure that a Government, whatever its complexion, will tackle this thorny problem?
I submit that we all know what will happen when the proposals come out. The counties, no doubt with that dignity which they acquire on these occasions when they are standing in the way of the applications of the urban communities, will have much to say if those proposals include promotion for urban communities anywhere. No doubt if it is a two-tier status that is proposed—something on the new county borough lines—the existing county boroughs will have something to say, and, if anything is done to assault the rural district councils, there will be

such an uprising of parochial passions—[Interruption]. Passions, I hope, are not confined to one side of the House. It is no wonder that Sir Trustram Eve said what he did in Scarborough in September. 1947. He said:
There is no agreement on the changes desired, and I make so bold as to say that this will be true in 1948 or on any other date, or after whatever inquiry, full-dress or otherwise. Royal Commission, Boundary Commission, or what.
No one in this House will deny the case for comprehensive local government reform. But there can be few people, few hon. Members, if any, who will put their hands on their hearts and avow that such proposals will come in the foreseeable future. We pay lip-service to this, but we know that such proposals, for reasons which are obvious to us all, are unlikely to come for a long time.
The Boundary Commission could not do it and, as the Minister himself said. a Royal Commission could not do it: In other words, the attitude of the Minister tonight, in denying to two vigorous and growing authorities even a consideration of their position and problems in Committee, involves in itself an issue of importance to all other local authorities. In particular it involves an end being made to the use of Private Bill machinery which is legally available to the local authorities of this country.
The Minister argued that to take one or two authorities would prejudice the position. To take one or two authorities. of course, would lead to applications by others, but this House and its Committees have discretion in this matter. It does not follow that every application would be approved. Surely it is an argument which has unfortunate implications that every application should be resisted for fear it would lead to others. As for prejudicing the comprehensive solution, I doubt whether the Minister has any idea what the comprehensive solution would be. That being so, I do not think even his imaginative resources could lead him to the conclusion that these proposals would prejudice proposals not yet formulated and of which he has no idea.
I plead with the House to discern the underlying principle behind the opposition to these Bills. What Ilford is asking, and what Luton will be asking, is that the issues between these towns and their counties should be hammered out with the


Committee of experts upstairs. What Luton is saying and what Ilford is saying in relation to their counties needs to be examined in Committee. There is much involved here for local authorities. What we ask is that the argument for the indefinite freezing of local government structure should be resisted, and that the local authorities should be permitted to use the method which is their legal right. We ask that these two Bills, admittedly coming with a good case behind them, should be referred to the Committee in order to avoid that general freezing position. In order to concentrate on such a principle I suggest it is incumbent upon hon. Members on all sides of the House to combine on a non-party basis in support, not of Ilford or Luton, but of the principle of the method, and to remit to Committee the Luton and Ilford Bills for the expert investigation they need.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Pannell: I wonder whether the House really knows how long this question of the re-orientation of powers and the reconstruction of local government has been going on. It was first raised in its modern sense about 1940 by the present Lord Chancellor, when he was Postmaster-General. I have been associated since that date with the Association of Municipal Corporations and, to a degree, have been in consultation with the County Councils Association and other bodies on the question of reform of local government. if there is one thing true above all others, it is that one will not secure any agreement from any of them.
There is no possibility of any agreement. Generally speaking, those hon. Members who have addressed the House tonight have spoken with all the prejudices of the type of authority that they represent. I represent a division of Leeds which is an all-purpose authority and possesses all the necessary powers. In my time I have sat on an urban district council, two borough councils and a county council, and therefore I can claim to have a general all round knowledge of the subject.
The hon. and gallant Member for Bedford (Captain Soames) appeared to speak from the brief of a county clerk. I would remind him that if he consults one member of his family he will possibly say that

a little imperialism now and again is not out of place. That is what we are concerned with here—the question of local imperialism, the desire to take over other people's territory.
In the few minutes at my disposal I want the House to consider what is the purpose of local government. The purpose is to see that every child born into these islands gets a reasonably fair share of the services provided. Nobody can suggest that that is the position at the present time. In the short time that I have been in this House Motions have been moved on behalf of Hornchurch, Harrow and Enfield for non-county borough status, which would not improve their powers in a constitutional sense. All it would do would be to give them a mayor each—more of an adult status. I cannot for the life of me see why the Government could not have conceded that point. Those places are all going to be county districts under the new Act.
I think it is conceded under the 1948 Act that the functions of rural districts, non-county boroughs and urban districts will approximate. I think that is the general assumption. At any rate, nobody will suggest that the powers of a non-county borough are in advance of those of an urban district, apart from the question of the mayoralty and the creation of aldermen. I do not think anybody is likely to contradict that. But that modest and reasonable aspiration has been turned down. We are now faced with the exact situation which we might have expected when the Boundary Commission was dissolved. We are now told that the position has been restored as it was before the Boundary Commission were appointed. The ball having been thrown back to the local authorities, two of them have now come forward with the request for county borough status.
This matter does not brook further delay. Anybody who has been concerned with local government will know that the position is unfair. I myself was concerned with three authorities Which applied for county borough status, and I very much regret the dissolution of the Local Government Boundary Commission. A form of machinery should have been evolved by which that Commission could have made a report which from time to time could have been laid before


the House in specific cases, leaving with Parliament the last word as to whether it would accept or reject the report.
It has been said that this matter must be regarded as the first thing to be considered in a new Parliament. We may agree to that, but if there are to be successive Parliaments with no preponderant majority one way or the other we cannot wait until we have a Parliament with an overall majority. This matter has gone far enough. As has been said, there are a good many views on the question of local government which are shared across the Floor of this House. Hon. Members have themselves shown that. The hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) spoke as did the hon. and gallant Member for Bedford (Captain Soames) purely as a county council representative in this matter.
One must remember that the beginning of all the modern trouble in local government was the Education Act of 1944, which attempted to lay down functions in advance of the normal boundaries and constitutions. That was an Act largely evolved during a period of a Coalition Government and it seems to me that the present Front Benches might at least consider how much common ground there is between both sides of the House on the question of the reform of local government. I do not think it is a normal party political matter. The same sort of trouble affects Governments as that which affects county councils. Because of grants in aid, the Ministry of Health like to look upon themselves as a senior partner with the local authority. Similarly, county councils like to look upon themselves as senior partners with county districts. [An HON. MEMBER: " Managing directors."] An hon. Member says " managing directors "; be that as it may. Whatever the body concerned, they are all equal partners in local government.
Our concern is to bring the great Bills which are passed on the Floor of this House into effective contact with the people who use them. The Bills passed in this House are something like blue prints from the drawing office. What really matters is the bill on the rates. What matters is to see that everybody gets a similarly good service. I hope we shall not wait until the return of an all-powerful Government, but that we shall get on without delay, because the question is urgent and press

ing. I have the greatest degree of sympathy with Ilford and Luton, who are smarting, with many other local authorities, under a sense of very great injustice.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Reader Harris: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak for just a few moments in sup port of the Ilford Corporation Bill and, of course, in support of the Luton Corporation Bill which will follow. As far as I can see, many speakers this evening have been trying to deny to these local government areas what I think are their rightful aspirations. Strange though it may appear to hon. Members opposite, I am a person who believes in a certain amount of planning—sensible planning; and I think the experience of the last few years has shown that one of the gravest mistakes which a planner can make is to bite off more than he can chew. The second most grave fault he can make is to bite off something which he cannot even digest. In trying to embark upon a comprehensive review of local government structure I consider that the planners are not only biting off more than they can chew but are filling their mouths with something which can never be digested.
The words of the Minister of Health this evening have confirmed that. Not only did he say that there was no consensus of opinion as to what the revision of local government should be, but he also said that there was no immediate prospect of any comprehensive review. Incidentally, he said, further, that the prospect of an immediate review of local government is made even more remote by reason of the even balance of the parties in this House. But that is not an argument at all. With the parties so evenly balanced there is little likelihood of controversial legislation, such as the nationalisation of the sugar industry or the cement industry or anything like that, so surely the way is now open for some sort of agreed legislation on the subject of local government. [HON. MEMBERS: " No."] Why not? There are no, nationalisation Bills. This is just the sort of thing upon which hon. Members opposite could embark if they really felt like it.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Perhaps the hon. Member will permit me to intervene, for this is an important point. If he means that an agreement on


the general revision of local government between the county boroughs and non-county boroughs, between county councils and other local councils, is likely, then I feel he is viewing the situation with modest optimism, although I am quite sure that everybody who follows this subject will be interested to see the results of his efforts.

Mr. Harris: I was not making the point that there is any prospect of agreement. I do not think there is. The point I am trying to make is that now Is as good a moment as any to try. The prospects will never be any better than they are now. They could be worse.
These two areas, Ilford and Luton, want to become county boroughs, and they have come to the House to ask that their Bills should be given a Second Reading. That seems to me eminently reasonable, and I do not consider it an argument against them to say that, if these two Bills receive a Second Reading, or, perhaps, eventually are passed, there will be a spate of further applications. Why should there not be? The House must remember that, on matters of this sort, every Bill must be looked at on its merits. It is a fact that the Ilford Corporation Bill differs slightly from the Luton Corporation Bill. Every case has to be looked at on its merits. I freely confess that I represent a borough which one day may have aspirations to county borough status; but merely because I may one day in two or three or more years' time support a Bill for my borough is no reason for throwing out the Luton and Ilford Bills tonight. All that Luton and Ilford ask at the moment is that their Bills should be given a Second Reading. Why cannot they be given that?
The inference has been that if two county districts are given county borough status it will cause a tremendous upset in the local government world. The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) said that he was against what he called " isolated pockets of resistance." Is that a fair description of a county borough? Is Croydon an isolated pocket of resistance? [Interruption.] It may be considered a good description of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams). but it is not fair

to describe Croydon as such. County borough status is a legitimate aspiration, and I believe that it is a status which commends itself very greatly to the citizens of many county districts—and very rightly so, too.
The Boundary Commission, as we have heard tonight, has proposed " most purposes authorities " not unlike county boroughs, and I think that, in the absence of any prospect of those most purposes authorities ever being set up, the second best thing to do is to allow those county districts which wish to, to become county boroughs and to put forward Private Bills to this House to that end.

Mr. MacColl: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to suggest that the Boundary Commission suggested that Ilford should be a purposes authority? Because in fact they specifically exempted Ilford, because it is part of the London area.

Mr. Harris: I agree, but that does not invalidate the argument I am making. County borough status gives the citizens of county boroughs a thing which is the most important thing in local government, and that is, administration as near as possible to the people for whom it exists. That is a right and proper thing. In the absence of any prospect of those most purposes authorities being set up, why cannot we adhere to the method which. although it may not be very good, is, at least, the method which has obtained for the last 60 years—the Private Bill method. every case being considered individually on its merits? No great harm will be done if for the next 60 years Private Bills are brought forward for county borough status.
I do not think any great harm has been done by this procedure up to now. We can always look at every case on its merits. This procedure means that the structure of local Government is being altered very slowly and in a way in which passions, parochial or otherwise, are not aroused, and the people get just what they want, and that is the right to manage their own affairs. I have, therefore, very much pleasure in supporting this Bill, and in expressing the hope that, now that the Minister of Health has departed. everybody in the House, even hon. Members on the other side, will vote—as their consciences tell them, and not regarding this as a party matter—and go into the Lobby to give the Bill a Second Reading.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Messer: I am one of those Members who regret very much that this Debate should have taken a turn which appears to indicate two opposing forces. I am sure that the disinterested Members—I mean those Members who are not committed to either county councils or the Association of Municipal Corporations—must have seen that in the majority of cases the argument has been based not on reason but on prejudice. I am sorry for that, because over a period of years I have made it plain that I believe the time is long overdue when somebody should be courageous enough to recognise that to achieve efficient social services we must create an efficient instrument for the purpose of that administration.
Because of that, I cannot agree with the Minister that this problem should not be tackled. Indeed, I think the fact that the problem is such a formidable one is a challenge to the Members of this House to solve the problem. I should like to remind the House of what is happening because we are making no attempt to solve that problem. What has been said by the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) is quite true, to the extent that efficient local government will not be found merely in the mechanism of local government. There can be an efficient machine, but unless that machine is so designed as not merely to achieve mechanical efficiency but to enable those qualities which are so necessary when rendering public service to find correct expression, then the best results will not be obtained.
For that reason it is therefore obvious that there are certain services which can be better administered by a large authority. For instance, the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth is a member of a very progressive borough, but it is benefiting because a county authority was able to get agreement between local authorities and to launch the finest drainage scheme in the world—the West Middlesex drainage scheme. Those services which depend merely upon what may be called mechanistic forces can be better administered by a large authority, but they are impersonal; they are the type of service that does not matter so much to the individual. Land drainage, the provision of water, gas and electricity are things which affect people in the mass,

and not so much the individual. When we come to the personal services such as the health service, education, and maternity and welfare services, it is important that those who administer the services should be as near as possible to the people the services are intended to benefit. If we recognise those principles, the possibility is that we should abolish county boroughs, and county councils, too. What we should have is an authority more fitting to the needs.
There is then this very important point. We cannot go on claiming the need for extended social services unless we create the instrument by which they can be administered. What is happening? We are in an anomalous position. We are pressing for expansion of the social services, and saying that the minor local authorities cannot do the job. As a consequence, we give the work to a larger authority which has to delegate part of its work to the minor authority, and we get such hybrid things as divisional executives, and such completely anachronistic things as area health committees, where county councils plus representatives of a local authority form a committee to do work which could quite easily be done by an independent local committee.
What is fearsome about this is that our failure to face up to this situation means that central Government steps in and does work for which it was never intended, and we are watching a passing from local government to central Government of powers which the central Government is not the best type of instrument to use. I mention this because I hope the House will not accept the idea that we cannot face this problem. It has to be faced, and unless we do, local government is doomed to disappear.
Having said that, it is incumbent upon me to refer to the Bills. I do not think that we can agree that we should recognise only the advantages that come to a borough which wants to become a county borough, without seeing its effect upon its neighbours. I admire Ilford, not because of the Members whom it sends to this House, but for other reasons. We cannot ignore what would happen if Ilford got county borough status. Walthamstow has a big population and produces two good Members of Parliament. If Ilford were entitled to county borough status, so would Walthamstow


be, with a population of 112,000 and a rateable value of £887,000.

Mr. Harry Wallace: And a very good council.

Mr. Messer: Yes, a very good council. Leyton, which is not very far from Ilford, has a population of 106,000 and a rateable value of £775,000. If we come into the London area, then clearly we are faced with the position where county government would go entirely but where county borough government could not render the services that would be required. If we look at Harrow, the population there is—

Mr. Nabarro: What about its Members?

Mr. Messer: The Members of Parliament of Middlesex are a cross-section. It has got some good Members, some very indifferent, and some not so good. In Middlesex, if we started to give county borough status, Harrow alone has a rate-value of £1,863,000 with a population of 116,000. Willesden has a rateable value of £1,629,000 with a population of 185,000. Tottenham, which of course is the most important borough, has a rateable value of £1,018,880 with a population of 157,000 and the best Member of Parliament in the county. It could claim to be a county borough.

Mr. Hutchinson: Surely the hon. Member would agree that Tottenham, by virtue at least of its Member, ought to be a county borough.

Mr. Messer: Yes, but only if Ilford is. As a matter of fact, I want to get away from the idea of a county borough and a county council. I want to see this thing examined without the prejudices which arise from the fact that we have been members of certain authorities.
Let us take the case for Luton. Luton certainly has a case for being a county borough, but if we give it county borough status, apart altogether from the fact that there would be some balancing by the equalisation rate, we should take 40 per cent. of the rateable value of the county. Indeed, we should only leave two urban districts—one is Bedford and the other is Dunstable—of any consequence. County government would come to a standstill. I do not think that means that

Luton should not become a county borough; what I do think is that Luton is trying to get it both ways. Luton have said that they want to be a county borough but do not want to add to their acreage. That is wrong. Luton would be more justified in claiming county borough status if they would take on the liability for some of the surrounding rural districts.
It is all these inconsistencies and anomalies that need to be ironed out. I should not mind if there were some examining body, but if this Bill gets a Second Reading it will not go before a Committee to be examined in detail. If it gets a Second Reading, it means, in effect, that we are agreeing to it, and if some agreement is reached on the points raised by the petitioners and the opposition in Committee, we cannot vote against the Bill on Third Reading. I hope that this Debate will succeed in impressing on the Government the necessity for taking what steps are open to them to institute an investigation, because it is inevitable that at some time we have to reform local government or local government will be lost.

9.16 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It is true, as the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer) has said, that the turn this Debate took a little earlier is somewhat to be regretted. We are debating two private Bills, and also a general principle. The general principle is of interest to us all, though the two Bills are of more particular interest to those Members directly concerned. It is on the general principle that I have ventured to intervene, because I think that on Private Members' Bills the Front Bench should retain a decent reticence.
I cannot express my agreement too strongly with what the hon. Member for Tottenham has said, that unless local government is adjusted from time to time it will come to a stop. It has been truly said that local government is working just now, but that is because of these infinite and often painful processes of adjustment which have been carried on over the years. They have been frozen since 1939, which is where the difficulty arises. No major adjustments have been made since 1939. Comparing that with the decade before, we find that between 1929 and 1938 there were 1,300 boundary changes


made by local Acts, by Provisional Orders and by county reviews. That constant fitting and adjustment of the garment to the body went on, and by virtue of that local government remains a living thing.
Those who were in the previous Parliament will remember that the argument brought forward for the abolition of the Boundary Commission was that a general review was actually in process, a review which it was hoped would soon come to fruition. It was stated by the Minister that he had come to the conclusion that the correct procedure was for the Government to accept responsibility for examining the whole position and ultimately bringing forward their own proposals. That examination, he said, was now in being. But what the Minister said tonight was that no Minister of Health under present circumstances would bring forward any comprehensive proposals for local government reorganisation. Therefore, a completely new situation has arisen. The Minister told us in the last Parliament that:
 The reason why we are postponing the use of certain powers until the end of 1951 is because we are hoping that our proposals will have matured, and that, therefore, any attempts on the part of local authorities to change either their functions or the boundaries in the meantime will be assimilated and overtaken by the proposals of the Government, —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, 1949; Vol. 469, c. 516.]
The Minister has told us tonight that no longer holds. That puts the Government in a serious position, as it does the House, because this is no party matter. It certainly throws a grave responsibility on the House to see if it can come to an agreement upon these matters. If that is not done it is faced with an indefinite postponement of that process which between 1929 and 1938 gave us 1,300 separate adjustments. I see around me many of those who are prominent in local government and who know well the thought and work, and sometimes the frustration, that went into the promotion of these matters. But they were not all frustrated; they did not all end in smoke. They ended in that series of adjustments, which made it possible for local government to continue in this country. In the Act which was passed last year it was provided in paragraph 4 of the Schedule that the county reviews may begin again after the end of 1951. It

was on account of that that the Minister asked for and received the assent of the House to the Bill which he then brought forward. It is therefore on account of the reversal of policy now announced that I speak.
I certainly have no intention of speaking upon the two Bills before us tonight, because the two Bills are matters for the Private Members concerned, and the Private Members, without any distinction of party, have put their case for and against. We all know that the interests of the Bills cuts right across all party affiliations and my colleagues—I cannot call them my friends in the Parliamentary sense—from Glasgow will know

Mr. Messer: What about " comrades "?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: That has a technical meaning in Glasgow which it would be as well for us to avoid here. I will use the word " colleagues." Very often there were occasions when to use a colloquialism, we all " ganged up " against Ministers of any political persuasion to obtain something which we think is good for the city. Long may that continue. Similarly, I have seen members of the county in solid phalanx against what they regarded as an incursion on their rights, without any predilection for the political colour of those with whom they were associated.
If that is all to stop, a great responsibility falls on the Government to bring forward their proposals, and the fact that we are hanging here on an even balance becomes a great evil, not a great advantage to the country. It will not be to the advantage of the country if both sides are so strong that neither side can do anything at all. That is the position to which we are apparently moving. I trust that the Minister has not said his last word, but that it will be possible for him to come forward before very long and, at least, give a lead to the House on this matter.
All that we have heard here tonight is, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Dr. Hill), that a freeze is now applied to the infinitely delicate process of local government adjustment, a freeze which apparently—horrible thought—like Norse mythology may go on without any spring coming at all to thaw it and a winter of perhaps three years long will come upon us. Those


acquainted with Norse mythology know how that led to complete collapse not merely of all human but of divine affairs —the twilight of the gods. I trust that is not the prospect which the Minister holds out to us tonight.
Tonight a very important declaration has been made, and the House should not allow it to pass without taking a note of it—that is, that until some new Government proposals are made neither the new nor the old procedure can operate. That is not a position that the House or country can for long contemplate with equanimity.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Moeran: As Member for South Bedfordshire, I am in a rather special position with regard to the Luton Bill. Part of my constituency is in Luton and part in the administrative county of Bedford. Luton wants the Bill and the county does not, so I can appreciate the arguments both for and against. On both sides it is a matter of self-interest for the citizens. Luton seeks the prestige of county borough status and the greater administration of its own affairs which goes with it. It seeks the financial advantage which it deems would accompany that status. The county pursues the financial advantages of its members also, and its prestige, which it would lose by the loss of Luton from the county.
I am in a more delicate position than the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill). In his case the whole of his body spiritual, political, and corporal, is within the borough boundaries. I have one political foot in Luton and the other in Bedfordshire. Perhaps that puts me in an objective position, or perhaps it only means that I am bound to put my foot in it somewhere. I may be like the man who has one foot on the punt and the other on the bank—bound to come down sooner or later.
I do not propose tonight to detain the House by dealing with the merits or demerits of the case for or against this Bill, but I would observe that if the conflict between county and borough is to be resolved it can be done only if primary consideration is given to the greater national interest involved. That national interest has never been so involved as it is today, because the whole

of local government is in a state of flux imposed upon it by the development of our society and because of the ebb and flow and growth of population. For those reasons, local authorities have become both too small and too large for local government. They are too large because, by the growth of population, the individual ciizen has lost his contact with his unit and has lost also that sense of community which prevailed before in the village and the town. They are too small because today, with the shrinkage of the country through the development of communications, and with the development of such welfare services as the hospital service, the local unit does not provide an adequate, effective or efficient population unit.
It is in that situation that these Bills must be judged. In November, 1949, the Government commenced a review of the structure and functions of local government and expressed the wish that the changes in local government should be brought to a standstill for the time being; and the Associations of local authorities are about to confer and formulate proposals to put before the Government for consideration. Weighty though the arguments of Luton for County Borough Status may be, it is against that background that they must be considered. Weighty though they may be within the existing framework of local government, it is reasonable that we should take no step now which might prejudge or prejudice any important and fundamental proposals which are likely to be brought forward for the revision of local government. In view of these larger issues only, I hope that the House will reject the Second Reading of the Bill at this time.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Ashton: While considering local government authorities of one or two tiers, I should like to shed three or four tears on the demise of the Local Government Boundary Commission. I wonder if I might point out what the Local Government Boundary Commission wrote in the last few days of their existence:
The setting up of our Commission too, with a procedure which provides a simple method of asking for changes of area and status, has in itself created unrest. The sooner this is dealt with the better it will be for local government 


One thing has been clear in this very interesting discussion, and that is that both sides of the House have quite clearly in their minds that some form of local government revision is required and required urgently. It was clear from the Debate on 2nd and 9th November last that when the Commission was dissolved the Government had under active consideration some new proposals. We are told today that those proposals are not even under passive consideration, but it should not be beyond the wit of the Government—and we have had evidence that they are the Government today—to produce some proposals so that this very important matter should not be left permanently in a state of suspended animation.
If I may speak about Ilford, I am sorry that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Hutchinson) is not here. He expressed quite friendly views towards the county council of which I am a member. I am grateful for that, because county councillors have very few friends in the world. It is not realised that county authorities—and by that I mean the 61 administrative counties—have since the war had immense additional responsibilities thrust upon them in the way of education, health, town and country planning, fire brigade and police. All these things they have had to try to digest and it may be that we have not fulfilled those functions quite as efficiently as we might. That is true of anything we may look back upon, but taking it by and large I think that the work done, not merely by local councillors but by officials, is immense. Immense burdens have been thrust on them and on many thousands of voluntary people who serve on various committees.
I agree with the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer) that there is plenty of room for reorganisation in the case of divisional executives and area health committees. I want to address myself to the principle as it affects the country. Here we have the large county of Essex wth a million acres and a million and a half population, which is increasing daily. We have approached the problem as a whole and I agree with hon. Members on both sides of the House who say that this problem must be considered as a whole throughout the country.
We know the position of Ilford and appreciate the manner in which the proposal has been put forward by my hon. Friends. I am on good terms with the mayor, aldermen and burgesses from Ilford who voted extremely well last year, and at the recent elections in February and, I have no doubt, will do the same next month. One point which needs to be put in its right perspective was brought out in Question and answer, namely, that the Boundary Commission did consider the question of county borough status for Ilford. They were not able to recommend it, although it was dealt with on a priority basis, because the position of Ilford was bound up with the large London area. We have to consider this problem as a question affecting England and Wales, and I am certain we would be well advised to take careful account of what the associations of local authorities—who, I understand, are now considering this problem—have to say.
Obviously it is a problem bristling with difficulties, but a problem of that nature is something which the British are pretty good at tackling. There is unanimity that reform is required and I join my voice with those who want to see some solution. I say that in the belief that the solution brought forward here by the Boroughs of Ilford and Luton, although under considerable provocation, cannot really lead to a proper solution of the problem. if this is done hurriedly, it will be to the disadvantage both of the divorce and the divorcee if I may use these terms in this content.
As Vice-Chairman of the Essex County Council with 43 authorities under us, I am prepared to say that there is room for reform because the authority is too large. Finally, I join with those who feel that this is a problem which ought to be faced. It will not be an easy solution, but it would not get us far in life if, when problems are difficult, we turn our backs and say that there is nothing we can do about it.

9.36 p.m.

Squadron-Leader A. E. Cooper: My position in this Debate is somewhat unique, Mr. Speaker. I am Chairman of the Legal and Parliamentary Committee of the Ilford Borough Council which is promoting this Bill. It has been


my privilege to pilot it through the Borough Council and now, with the good wishes of the burgesses of South Ilford, I am here tonight to help get this Measure through the House.
We have heard a remarkable statement from the Minister of Health upon which my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) commented. That is, that the Local Government Boundary Corn-mission has been destroyed by the right hon. Gentleman, and that we have been put back into the position of Private Bill legislation which existed before that day. And having been put into that position, we are now to be precluded from taking any advantage of such legislation. In fact, the future of local government is sabotaged at this time by the Minister.
We have been told tonight that this Parliament, precariously balanced as it is, is not one which can carry out the necessary reforms that are so necessary. Have we any indication, or is there any guarantee, that a future election—whether it be fought in the near future or some months ahead—will produce a result very different from that which faces us today? And should we be faced with a similar situation, does it mean that local government reform is to be put back still further until the day arises when we shall have a Government with an overall majority sufficient to carry out these essential and vital reforms? I say that we are not in a position to look into the future that far, that we must deal with the problems as we find them today. And we find serious problems, problems which are aggravating local authorities to a great degree, and it is vital that we should face up to our responsibilities firmly and deal with them.
In my opinion, and in the opinion of many others on these benches, the essence of local government is that it should be local and that it should be government; it should not be a remoteness and a delegation. And it should be both prompt in action and economic of operation; not dilatory or expensive. We were told in the early stages of the Debate that we could not do much about altering things as they are, but I would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that considerable alterations in the structure of local government have taken place since 1944 —perhaps without our knowing

What has happened is that many of the more considerable functions which were previously exercised by borough councils have been transferred to other and bigger authorities, not necessarily to the benefit of the service which was being operated. We are told that we have this freeze, but it is only a freeze on the surface, as far as we are aware. In fact, very considerable changes are already taking place, and we must face that consideration. The three principal changes are, of course, in education, town and country planning and in health.
The specific position of the Ilford Borough Council in regard to education is that, as an excepted district, we are doing today all that we would be required to do if we were granted county borough status. But the work is being done in a far more expensive manner than it would be done if we were doing it ourselves. It is being done far more slowly than it would be if we were doing it ourselves. I will not weary the House with details of the extraordinary delays which take place with the Essex County Council. That is a very good body of people, I have no doubt, but, such is the system which they have to operate, that delays of six months and up to a year are not unknown. At the end of that time, when our plans are finally approved by the Essex County Council, they come back to us for attention. We find that the tenders we previously accepted are no longer valid, and we have to start the process all over again. We have had case after case of higher costs as a result of this slowness and slackness in the operation of the present machinery.
On the subject of planning, the Minister of Health said that nobody could conceive of giving planning authority to the Ilford Borough Council if it were made a county borough. I would remind the House that the Government themselves gave such powers to East Ham, West Ham and Southend, among others. If it did not create any difficulties there, surely it should not be difficult to give similar powers to Ilford.
We have also been told that, in the event of our Bill receiving a Second Reading and Ilford being granted county borough status, this would, of necessity, bring forward a spate of other applications. Would that be a bad thing? I suggest that it would be a good thing


If other local authorities were similarly placed and had as strong a case to put before this House, they would be fully entitled to the due consideration of all parties. It is erroneous to suggest that this would cause a lot of other applications and therefore, of necessity, Ilford's application must be rejected.
I am afraid that local authorities are getting somewhat tired of this county council argument which has been the same for many years and, presumably—unless anything is done about local government—will be the same for very many years to come. This is essentially a dogin-the-manger attitude. They say, " We have what we hold; dig in our toes and make jolly sure that nobody else gets any of their powers back again," without any regard whatever to the general well-being.
The great weakness of county council administration at present is, of course, that no two counties are constituted in the same way. The County of Essex is essentially a two-part county. There is a very large urban area and a very large rural area, and the representation of the rural area considerably outweighs the representation of the urban area, notwithstanding the fact that the urban part is considerably greater in population and in rateable value. It should not be difficult for these areas—and I do not exclude Walthamstow, Leyton and all those areas similarly placed to ourselves—to receive county borough status without any loss to the Essex County Council. The equalisation grant takes care of that. Let us forget the idea of the loss of money or rateable value, because the rateable value adjusts itself, since the equalisation grant takes care of it to a very large extent.
We have gone a stage further than that of acrimony between the two sides. There is a considerable amount of unanimity in some quarters. I have here a letter from the Association of Municipal Corporations, which hon. Members will agree is a not inconsiderable body and a somewhat influential one. Its views on local government are of interest, and its views on the two Bills now before the House are peculiarly apt. This letter states:
 I am therefore writing to you as a Vice-President of this Association to ask you to take such action as you can to ensure that the Bills promoted by members of the Association receive a Second Reading. In doing

this, I am not asking you to decide on the merits of any Clause of either Bill.
The letter then goes on to detail the complete procedure for Bills of this character.
I have attended many conferences of the Association of Municipal Corporations, and I have found that its interest in and deep concern for the future welfare of local government is shared by all parties. It is not a matter which is confined to one particular party, and I well remember at Llandudno a couple of years ago hearing members of the Socialist Party being very vehement when it was expected that powers would be taken away from them. So it is all over the country. We have got to get down to this question of reform of local government without delay, and this is the type of Parliament which would make it possible for some suitable reform to be brought about. I hope this House will give these Bills a Second Reading in order that, in Committee upstairs, we can thrash out the matter and find out whether we really have a case or not.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Benson: Whatever may be the fate of these two Bills, I think the two non-county boroughs which promoted them have done a public service. I have listened to the whole of this Debate, and, while I am not sufficiently convinced to vote against the advice of the Government, I do feel that what has been emphasised in this Debate is the need for some action. The Minister of Health made a very agreeable speech, though he was not quite so effective in dealing with these Bills. He himself said that there was a great danger in putting one's hands on one piece of local government without consideration for the rest, but that is what the Government have been doing consistently for the last five years. Five Government Departments--and the Home Secretary has had two bites —have introduced legislation which has stripped the non-county boroughs of very important functions. That is a very vital change.
I am not suggesting that that is going to destroy the non-county boroughs. It is not. But it has, to a very great extent. taken away those particular services which they are far more capable of rendering than are the county boroughs. The hon. and gallant Member for Ilford,


South (Squadron-Leader Cooper) referred to the trouble that Ilford is having with regard to its county. All I can say is that in Chesterfield we are having exactly the same trouble—unlimited delay.
We have to face the fact that the county administration is not as efficient as that of a reasonably efficient non-county borough. A lot of the services—personal services of which the citizen is really conscious; the local health services, the education services—are, despite the arrangement made there, the ones which have gone, and local government is going to suffer. We cannot get away from that. Local government is bound to suffer unless something is done. The Minister has held out no hope whatever of any immediate prospect of this nationwide and fundamental reconsideration of local government. We all know the reason why. We have balanced parties, and nobody knows when the balance is going to be materially changed so as to give one side or the other a majority. That means that the whole question of the re-construction of local government is put into cold storage indefinitely.
The question is, can it go on indefinitely? The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) pointed out that, without any great national reconsideration of local government, there always was a continuous and steady adjustment. That is frozen; everything is frozen at the present time, and will remain so until some Government decides that it is sufficiently strong to raise this highly controversial subject. That must of necessity have a very paralysing effect. What has happened is that one section of local government—the non-county borough—has suffered very seriously during the last five years. But then a freeze is put on.
All I can say is that whatever may happen to these two Bills, they have had the effect of bringing the matter before the House. Whether by arrangement between the parties or by any other method, I do not know, but I think notice has been given that we cannot indefinitely postpone any change, and we cannot indefinitely maintain what is paralysis in the development of local government after a period when haphazard and completely unplanned attrition has been applied to one very important form of government.
There has been at least five years of " Death from a thousand cuts," and this is the very worst time for the right hon. Gentleman to come here and say that nothing can be done at the moment.
I suggest to him that the purely negative attitude cannot be maintained. Something will have to be done, whether by one party or the other, or by agreement between the parties. I am not concerned with what happens with regard to these two Bills. They have performed a most useful function in bringing this matter before the House and in giving a warning to this and future Governments that, sooner or later, the local authorities will get so restless that they cannot be held.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: I rise to express my disappointment that the Minister of Health intends to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. I do so because I feel that the principles contained in these two Bills vitally affect the interests of the constituency which I have the honour to represent, Cambridge Borough. The House will remember that in 1947 the Boundary Commission indicated that 10 non-county boroughs, of which Cambridge was one, would be suitable for inclusion under the category of new type county boroughs. My predecessor in the representation of Cambridge visited the right hon. Gentleman to try and persuade him to reduce the figure of 100,000 to 75,000 as a qualification for county borough status. In return for the right hon. Gentleman accepting that proposition he gave an undertaking that in the life of the last Parliament he would not press for county borough status. My predecessor said on 9th November last year:
 … we said in return that we would not in any way seek to embarrass the Minister by Private Bill activities during the life of this Parliament, and we shall be quite happy to adhere to that undertaking."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1949; Vol. 469, c. 1325.]
I stress the words " this Parliament."
We had hoped that some Measure might have been introduced in the King's speech which would have dealt in the only satisfactory way with the problem, namely, by a comprehensive Measure reforming local government. But nothing has happened. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) has rightly said that we are in a period of freeze. It was


said of one advocate that his tongue was so persuasive that he could even sell a glass of iced water at the North Pole. I am sure that bad he had the opportunity my hon. Friend would have achieved that miracle. But it seems to me that our situation resembles that of the Irish lady who begged money from a certain judge and said. " May the blessings of God follow you all your life " but, seeing that nothing was forthcoming, quickly added. " but may they never overtake you."
We have little or no hope of improving our position so long as the Government refuse to bring forward a comprehensive Measure dealing with local government reform. This Debate has given me the opportunity of voicing my disappointment that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton has merely resorted to a " Hobson's choice " in presenting this Bill to the House

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Mack: The Debate has shown that whatever point of view hon. Members take, everybody here at least appreciates the excellent service local councillors are giving and the deep sense of civic pride which is common to every part of the country. The Minister himself seemed to appreciate that. He added that he was not unmindful that Ilford and Luton were large centres and reasonably ambitions, but he could not accept this procedure in a piecemeal way. There was something in the force of his contention that we would have all kinds of authorities coming after

each other and that there might be bargains made in the spirit of " You vote for me I will vote for you." Everybody will agree that that would not be a desirable approach to a very important problem.

In Newcastle-under-Lyme, where we have a population of over 70,000, we do not like the idea of remote control. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer) said, it is very desirable that local government should not only be efficient but should be carried out by men who know and have practical experience of local conditions and have local associations. It is desirable that central government should not supersede what were, and should be, the functions of the borough. I am sure we all agree with that. We do not want this House to become more than an overriding authority. We do not want it to take over the legitimate and proper functions of the local authorities and to make people responsible for these councils feel that their efforts are being frustrated.

The Minister said quite frankly and honestly that he was not prepared to give an assurance that there should be—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Mr. Lennox-Boyd rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly, " That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 80 Noes. 278.

Division No. 9.
AYES
[10.6 p.m.


Aitken, W T.
Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)
Prior-Palmer, Brig O


Alport, C. J. M
Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Banks, Col. C.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Remnant, Hon. P


Bennett, R. F. B. (Gosport)
Harris, R. R. (Heston)
Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool. S.)


Bennett, W. G. (Woodside)
Heath, Colonel E G R
Russell, R. S.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Scott, Donald-


Brooke, H. (Hampstead)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W- W
Smithers, Peter (Winohester)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Studholme, H C.


Burden, Squadron-Leader F. A
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Butcher, H. W
Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)
Taylor, W. J (Bradford, N.)


Channon, H.
Hirst, G. A N
Thompson, R. H. M. (Croydon, W.)


Clarke, Brig. T. H. (Portsmouth. W.)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss P
Thornton-Kemsley. C N


Colegate, A.
Howard, G R. (St Ives)
Tilney, J. D


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hudson, Sir A. U M (Lewisham, N.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K


Crouch, R. F.
Kaberry, D
Vosper, D. F.


Crowder, F. P (Ruislip, N'thwood)
Keeling, E. H
Wade, D. M.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Kerr, H. W (Cambridge)
Wakefield, E. B. (Derbyshire, W.)


Darling, Sir W. Y. (Edinburgh, S.)
Low. A. R W
Wakefield, Sir W W (St Marylebone)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


de Chair, S.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)


Deedea, W F
Maolean, F. H. R.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, E.)


Digby, S. Wingfietd
MacLeod, I. (Enfield, W.)
Wilson, G. (Truro)


Draws. C
Marshall, D. (Balmin)
Yates, V. F.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L
Medlicott, Brigadier F
York, C.


Dunglass, Lord
Nabarro, G.



Duthie, W. S.
Oakshott, H. D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fort, R.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S
Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson and


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Powell, J. Enoch
Squadron-Leader A. E. Cooper.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Freeman, J. (Watford)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Grigg)


Adams, Richard
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mafialieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Gonley, Mrs. C. S.
Mann, Mrs. J.


Allen, Soholefield (Crewe)
Gibson, C. W.
Manuel, A. C.


Awbery, S. S
Gilzean, A.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Ayles, W. H.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)


Bacon, Miss A
Gooch, E. G.
Mothers, Rt. Hon. George


Baird, J.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C
Mellish, R. J.


Baker, P.
Greenwood, A W. J. (Rossendale)
Messer, F.


Balfour, A.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Middleton, Mrs. L


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Grenfell, D. R.
Mikardo, Ian


Bartley, P.
Grey, C. F.
Moeran, E. W.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Monslow, W.


Bing, G. H. C.
Griffiths, Rt Hon. J. (Lionelly)
Moody, A. S.


Blackburn, A. R.
Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)
Morley, R.


Blenkinsop, A.
Gunter, R. J.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Blyton, W. R.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mort, D. L.


Boardman, H.
Hale, J. (Rochdale)
Moyle, A.


Booth, A.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mutley, F. W.


Bottomley, A. G.
Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)
Murray, J. D.


Bowden, H. W
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Nally, W.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hamilton, W. W.
Neal, H.


Brains, B.
Hannan, W.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hardman, D. R.
O'Brien, T.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hardy, E. A.
Oldfield, W. H.


Brooks, T.J. (Normanton)
Hargreaves, A.
Oliver, G. H.


Broughton, Or. A. D. D.
Harrison, J.
Orbach, M.


Brown, George (Belpre)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Padley, W. E


Brown, T. J. (Ines)
Hayman, F. H.
Paget, R. T.


Burke, W. A.
Herbison, Miss M.
Paling, Rt. Hn. Wilfred (Boerne V'lly)


Burton, Miss E.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Hobson, C R.
Pargiter, G. A.


Callaghan, James
Holman, P.
Parker, J.


Carmichael, James
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Paton, J.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Houghton, Douglas
Pearson, A.


Champion, A. J.
Hoy, J.
Pearl, T. F.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hubbard, T.
Poole, Cecil


Cocks, F. S.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.)
Popplewell, E.


Coldrick, W.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Porter, G.


Collick, P.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, M. Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Collindridge, F.
Hurd, A. R.
Proctor, W. T.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pursey, Comdr H.


Cooper, G. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Rankin, J.


Cooper, J. (Deptford)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Redmayne, M.


Corbel, Mrs. F. K. (Peckham)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Rees, Mrs. D.


Cove, W. G.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Reeves, J.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Janner, B.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Crawley, A.
Jay, D. P. T.
Reid, W. (Camlachie)


Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Jeger, G. (Goole)
Rhodes, H.


Crosland, C. A R
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Robens, A.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jenkins, R. H.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caemarvonshire)


Dairies, P.
Johnson, J. (Rugby)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Darling, G. (Hillsboro')
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Davies, Edward (Stoke, N.)
Jones, lack (Rotherham)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Jones, W. E. (Conway)
Royle, C.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Keenan, W.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Davies, Nigel (Epping)
Kenyon, C.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
King, H. M.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Deer, G.
Kinley, J.
Simmons, C. J.


Delargy, H. J
Lang, Rev, G.
Slater, J.


Diamond, J.
Lee, F. (Newton)
Snow, J. W.


Dodds, N. N.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Sorensen, R. W


Donnelly, D.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir F


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Sparks, J. A.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. J. (W. Bromwich)
Lewis, A. W. J. (West Ham, N.)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J


Dye, S.
Lindgren, G. S
Strauss, Rt. Hon R (Vauxhalls)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Stress, Dr. B


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wiry'';
Sutcliffe, H.


Edwards, W.(Stepney)
Logan, D. G
Sylvester, G. O


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Longden, F. (Small Heath)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Longden. G. J. M. (Herts. S.W.)
Taylor, R J. (Morpeth)


Ewart, R.
McAllister, G.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Fernyhough, E.
MacColl, J. E.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Field, Capt. W. J.
McGovern, J.
Thomas, I. R. (Rhondda, W.)


Finch, H. J.
McInnes, J.
Thomas, T. George (Cardiff)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McKay, J. (WalIsend)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Follick, M.
McLeavy, F.
Thurtle Ernest


Foot, M. M.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Timmons, J.


Forman, J. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Tomlinson, Rt Hon G


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Tomney, F.







Turton, R. H.
Whiteley, RI. Hon. W
Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)


Vernon, Maj W. F
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B
Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)


Viant, S P
Wilkes, L.
Wise, Major F. J.


Wallace, H. W
Wilkins, W. A.
Wood, Hon. R.


Watkins, T. E
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Webb, M. Hon M (Bradford, C.)
Willey, 0. G. (Cleveland)
Woods, Rev. G. S.


Weitzman, D.
Williams, D. J. (Heath)
Wyatt, W. L.


Wells, W T (Walsall)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


West, D. G
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)



White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Wilson, Rt. Hen. J. H. (Huyton)
Mr. Ashton and Captain Soames


Question, " That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — LUTON CORPORATION

BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred until Tuesday next.

Orders of the Day — DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY BILL

Again considered in Committee. [Major MILNER in the Chair]

Question again proposed, " That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."

It being after Ten o'Clock and objection being taken to further proceeding, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING AND WATER SUPPLIES, WARWICKSHIRE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
 That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Sparks.]

10.21 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: The subject of this Debate may appear to be somewhat limited in its geography, but since there must be hundreds of county divisions and thousands of rural district councils my difficulties will perhaps be common to many hon. Members in this House.
In the Debate on the King's Speech the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) said this:
 My appeal is that we use this Parliament for the purpose, among others, of giving a real encouragement and fillip not only to the agricultural industry but to the countryside as a whole."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1950; Vol. 472, c. 322.]
We have made unprecedented advances in the agricultural districts since 1945, but one important impediment towards self-sufficiency in the lack of amenities in the countryside, and until we give the countryside more housing, better sewerage

and piped water supplies we shall never produce the food we need, we shall never have back on the land the people whom we used to have, and we shall never be independent of the dollar.
If we hope to achieve the standards of living which we desire so much, we must provide these things in the countryside. The Minister has done a magnificent job since 1945. Something like 110,000 houses have been built in the. rural areas of which at least one-quarter built by the councils have been let to, farm workers, but I am no more complacent than he is when I go into some' of the villages in my constituency, such as Long Lawford, and see behind the picturesque exterior of the houses conditions as bad, if not worse, than in many of the slums in the big industrial towns.
The village I have mentioned has a population of something like 1,600. It contains many farm workers and is a dormitory for the British Thomson-Houston works of Rugby. They have built there some eight houses since 1945.
I should like to describe one of the houses common to the village. It is, only one of those that were condemned as long ago as 1939. There were some 30 houses due to be pulled down before the war broke out. In this house there are five adults and three children—the mother and father and their three children age eight, five and one and a half years, the mother and father-in-law, and a brother-in-law, age 26. These people are all living in a house with one room upstairs and one room downstairs. I am ashamed when I go into these houses and talk to some of the housewives who are attempting to keep their homes clean when flakes of plaster are falling from the ceilings all the time and the walls are so damp that their children are often suffering from colds or even from pneumonia.
We are all delighted that the housing cuts have been restored. I am pleading now for a larger allotment of houses


for the rural district councils, particularly such councils as mine, which last year had only some 76 houses built. I am hoping that next year there will be a larger allocation. When we come to the water supplies, we find that they are unhealthy in these districts at any time of the year. At least 15 parishes out of the 40 have no piped water supply but get their supplies from wells, springs and the like. In some villages housewives are getting their washing water out of the canal.
There are some 400 farms in the division, and it can be appreciated that they consume an enormous amount of water during the year. Many farmers have to cart their water in milk churns and vessels of all descriptions during the summer Months. I should like to quote an official of the local N.F.U. on this matter of water supplies. He states:
 Only yesterday I was out at Stockton where a farmer had had his cowshed condemned mainly because of the polluted water supply. Although he had got his plans passed for the erection of a new shed and building at his own expense, he could not see his way clear to commence operations as the necessary piped supply was not available.
In this connection, I would particularly mention the Ansty and Shilton water supply schemes, which have been held up some 12 months owing to a lack of pipes. Further delays have recently occurred, although work has just begun. Even when these schemes are completed the households will not have water laid on. There are to be some six standpipes, two of which will be outside the village " pubs " and the other four, by a curious coincidence, outside the houses of the Conservative members of the local council. Meanwhile, the housewives have to walk in all weathers for some 100 yards in the open to get water from corrugated iron butts which are filled twice a week by a water cart coming from Rugby, some 10 miles away. These butts have no cover and are liable to contamination.
In all fairness to the rural district council, it should be stated that they have schemes prepared for the whole district, some of which are at the Ministry. I earnestly plead that rural district councils should get a larger supply of pipes, as the shortage of pipes is holding up some 'of these schemes. My farming friends were delighted to see that the Gracious

Speech mentioned a new Bill for water supplies in the countryside. I find that sewage disposal is closely linked up with water supply. In many of the parishes there are no sewage disposal pipes. In fact, this is general in that part of Warwickshire west of Watling Street, towards the borders of Coventry. A number of schemes have been submitted to the Ministry, in particular that of Binley.
May I again quote a local member of the Farmers' Union who, speaking of the effect of this upon the farming community said:
 South of the borough you will find antiquated sewage systems stretching past Princethorpe that causes considerable pollution of the water of those streams used for watering cattle in this area. This is extremely serious, and I am taking up the matter myself, looking at it not only from the particular point of view of cleanliness, but also of animal health. One can see the great danger which the cattle are being put to through this leakage.
I would say that in Warwickshire they are making good progress with regard to attestation for dairy cattle. I want particularly to mention the National Farmers' Union, the auctioneers of the town, the Agricultural Executive Committee, and the County Milk Officer, who are doing their best to get more cattle attested. But it can be seen that in conditions like this it is difficult to get on with this important task of having more cattle attested. May I, in conclusion, say that until we do have, in the countryside, these amenities of sewerage and water, of electricity, bus services, telephones, and many other things which are accepted as being essential in the towns, we shall never check rural depopulation. It is not only an economic matter but a socialogical matter. There has long been a cleavage between town and country. Until the countryside is given a square deal, and a fair share of those fair shares which have been going round, there will always be a tendency for the countryman to grumble about the townsman, and for the townsman to grumble about, and to fail to understand, the countryman.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. Profumo: I am intervening in this Debate for a few minutes because I am pleased that the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Johnson) has raised this subject. The problems about which he has been speaking are not limited by


the notional borders which bound his constituency and the one which I represent. In fact, these problems merge in with each other and overflow and are interdependent one upon the other.
With regard to the housing problem, may I say that many people living in the rural district of Southam, which borders the area of the hon. Member opposite, work and have their main interest in Rugby. They come to our areas to seek houses, and, consequently, live in the Southam rural district. We welcome them, but, in fact, anything which can be done to speed up housing in the Rugby district will help both of us because, obviously, many people have their names on the housing lists of both areas. We have an extremely difficult problem from the point of view of housing and water supply and sewerage. We would, therefore, welcome anything which the Parliamentary Secretary may feel able to do to accelerate housing in the Rugby district and also in our own.
I agree about the shortage of bricks for housing. Sometimes there is delay of up to 12 months, after approval of schemes by the Ministry of Health, in getting bricks. That is holding up housing very much. We are finding, in the remoter parts of the country, great difficulty in getting contractors even to tender for housing. But even after that we are finding there is a delay of something like 12 months because of a shortage of bricks.
May I make two suggestions to the Parliamentary Secretary? The first is that priority should be given to rural areas for bricks so that, after they have taken a great deal of time to get tenders agreed, building shall not be held up to such an extent through shortage of bricks. Second, greater latitude should be permitted by the Ministry of Health in the matter of standards and costs of rural housing. The great difficulty is sometimes to find contractors prepared to tender at all, particularly where we are building only two or three houses in these villages. It is practically impossible for them to tender at the price the Ministry insists upon, because they have to move labour and materials. Consequently, we are finding that these schemes are held up for a long time. It would be of great assistance if the Minister could restore the balance of one in five houses to be built by private enterprise.
In the latter part of March, negotiations were going on between the Rugby rural district and the Southam rural district, under which we were to be supplied with water by Rugby. These negotiations broke down because Rugby felt they would not have enough water over, after meeting their own requirements, to provide a supply for us. If the supply of pipes or other requirements needed to satisfy their own area could be speeded up, that might help us because they might well find that after satisfying their own requirements they could satisfy the needs of our district. This is a very serious matter indeed. Even in regard to water supply we are finding that there is great delay after the ordering of pipes.
Why should we not be allowed to order pipes in advance of the schemes being actually approved. May I give an example of what I mean? In principle, a scheme has been approved by the Minister of Health for local water supplies in Ratley, Shotteswell, and Warmington, but the Minister will not allow the necessary pipes to be ordered until a trial borehole has been sunk. The local authority has to wait something like 12 months before ordering the pipes, and then there is a delay; if the pipes could be ordered now, they would be available when required
One final word on the sewerage question. Only a few miles from Binley. which has already been mentioned, are Harbury, Bishops Itchington, and Napton, where the Minister has approved, in principle, a comprehensive sewerage scheme. This is, I understand, to be held up in the interests of national economy. Again, if we could order our pipes, we should not have to hold up our schemes when permission to proceed was eventually granted. I do hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to these questions; the present grievous situation is giving rise to widespread alarm, causing all sorts of irresponsible local attacks on the councils concerned and making their already difficult jobs even harder.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. Snow: Although this matter is raised to-night in the interests of the vicinity of Rugby, I would like to speak of Lichfield, as I think that the Parliamentary Secretary may condition his reply in the light of restrictions on capital investment. I


would like to ask two questions, one of which concerns the ancient city of Lichfield. Recently, I wrote asking my hon. Friend to consider a plea from that city that the plan for the re-construction of the sewerage works should be given effect to, and for permission to proceed. I must read the last paragraph from a letter which the Town Clerk of Lichfield sent to me and which I sent to my hon. Friend. In it, he said:
 The city council are very concerned with the state of their present works, and consider that this work is most urgent. If it is not allowed to proceed, the city council fear a major breakdown, and do not like to contemplate the result.
In his reply, the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the restriction on capital investment, and said there was a review about to be carried out, and hoped permission would shortly be given.
It seems extremely dangerous that it should be only a question of capital investment as to whether or not this plan is allowed to proceed; because, if there is the danger, as is implied by the Town Clerk's letter, surely action should be taken. I am no bacteriologist, but, clearly, what is in mind is the fear of outbreaks of diphtheria, and even worse. There have been 382 houses built since the war and there is this additional burden on the sewerage -system. This plan, which is the subject of the correspondence I have had with my hon. Friend, was initiated in 1938, and when these plans are put forward for consideration, and application made for reconstruction, it does seem most important that the medical aspect should be considered.
The hon. Member who opened the Debate spoke of rural areas, and my second point concerns a rural area. is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied with the terms of reference or the instructions issued by his Department to the sanitary inspectors of rural authorities? I know of a small village called Elford, near Tamworth, where night-soil is disposed of in the back gardens of some cottages; these gardens are very small indeed, and one can imagine what this accretion is like, year after year. Sewage disposal for small villages is something very important indeed.

10.43 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) for having raised tonight what is, undoubtedly, a very important subject; and to others who have contributed to the discussion. To deal with some of the specific points which he has raised, I would first refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Prof umo), who, quite properly, pointed out that the area he is immediately concerned with abuts on to the area of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby.
So far as housing, specifically in Long Lawford, is concerned, allocations are made to the rural district council itself and responsibility for distributing them over their area is one which must remain with the council. We are anxious, so far as we can, to see that the work is distributed as far as possible over the area of the authority. Only eight houses have been built in this parish since 1945, but this is one of 40 parishes in the rural council's area and I gather that there is a site already available to the local authority on which a further 40 houses can be built. I understand that it is intended to proceed with them very shortly; we are awaiting from the council their plans for a sewerage scheme for this parish, although I understand that this does not necessarily hold up proceeding with the actual housing in the district. Still, a further sewerage scheme there is under consideration. I believe we should have fuller details from the authority very shortly.
I am glad to say that on the whole the housing position in this rural area is not seriously unsatisfactory by comparison with other areas in the country. The council have been improving their housing work. The completion rate has been improved and I can say that although they have only built, up to 31st March this year, 210 houses, at the beginning of this year there were 77 under construction. There was the allocation of 62 houses carried over from last year's allocation which are not yet in contract, but which I hope will shortly be in contract. There are a further seven private licences issued on which building has not yet started and there is the preliminary allocation for this year of a


further 35 houses, making a total of 181 houses which they can proceed with in the rural council's area. We shall be very willing to reconsider the question of further allocations for this year, and, of course, the problem of allocation next year, depending upon how quickly the local authority can proceed with the work they already have in hand.
My hon. Friend raised the question of the provision of water, particularly in the Anstey and Shilton areas. There, the position is that the scheme was authorised on 4th March last year. Work only started on 29th March this year and the delay was undoubtedly due, in part, to the fact that the authority did not take advantage of our suggestion that they should put their order in for the pipes before authorisation was given. We invited them to place orders in advance but, unfortunately, they were not at the time ready to do so until they had fixed the actual contractor for the work. That was not necessary and some six months' delay did arise, due to that factor alone.
We appreciate, of course, the difficulties in connection with pipe deliveries for water schemes. This is not only true of this particular area, or of rural areas generally, but is also true of some of the big urban areas as well. It is a matter we have always very seriously under consideration, as has also our Central Advisory Water Committee. We are most anxious to make any progress we can, although we realise there are other very real claims upon these pipes and that we have to do our best with comparatively limited resources. However, we are most anxious to meet, in any way we can, the demands of the rural areas. I believe it is true that there are still nine parishes in this rural district area with no piped water supply and for which, so far, no proposals have been put to us.
We appreciate the difficulties that the authorities have to face, but we are anxious to get these schemes in as soon as possible, because we know there are many other delays inevitable in carrying these schemes through to fruition. The sooner we can get the schemes completed the better. It could, of course, be quite properly pointed out that if some of these

schemes had only been carried through earlier the position would have been very much better today. But that opportunity has passed, and we are only anxious now that we should get on as quickly as we can with the schemes before us.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the question of sewerage in Binley. There, it is true, there has been very real difficulty. There has been delay because the original scheme was, I believe, approved before the war and was re-submitted towards the end of 1947. Tenders were later obtained and it was hoped that we should be able to proceed. Unfortunately, this scheme, with many others, has had to be reviewed in the examination of the general capital investment programme. I know how difficult it must seem to the authority concerned, and those living in that area, when we tell them that they must postpone their hopes of starting this scheme in view of wider national considerations.
I can assure my hon. Friend that in reviewing all the sewerage schemes which come before us we take into account the needs of the area and, in particular—and this is the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member of Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow)—the health services in the area and the effect which a new sewerage scheme would have on the health of the people concerned. We try to give every possible consideration to the major needs of the district itself. I can only say that although we have not been able, so far, to receive a deputation from this council. which, like many others, wants to see us about their sewerage proposals, we hope before long that we shall have some further information for them which will make it worth while for them to see us. I would only add, generally, that we appreciate the housing, water supply and sewerage difficulties that face both rural and urban areas. They are not peculiar to any one part of the country and we are doing our utmost to secure—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Nine Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.